Slashdot Mirror


New Wonder Weed to Fuel Cars?

Hugh Pickens writes "Jatropha, an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation, may someday power your car. The plant, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content that when crushed can be burned in a diesel car while the residue can be processed into biomass for power plants. Although jatropha has been used for decades by farmers in Africa as a living fence because its smell and taste repel grazing animals, the New York Times reports that jatropha may replace biofuels like ethanol that require large amounts of water, fertilizer, and energy, making their environmental benefits limited. Jatropha requires no pesticides, little water other than rain and no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts. Poor farmers living close to the equator are planting jatropha on millions of acres spurred on by big oil companies like British Petroleum that are investing in jatropha cultivation."

484 comments

  1. Just use hemp. by lecithin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is a very good biomass source, it grows just about everywhere.

    You don't get high from smoking industrial hemp.

    See:

    http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Just use hemp. by QMalcolm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely you jest. Everyone knows hemp is a gateway fuel. Sure, filling up your car with a hemp once every week or so isn't going to do any serious damage. But then it becomes every week, then twice, three times, and pretty soon you need a heroin fuel injection every half hour to even get to the gas station, just to buy more.

    2. Re:Just use hemp. by cromar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The nations need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and see what a Good Thing(TM) hemp is (and I'm not even talking about it's psychoactive properties). Hemp could solve so many environmental/economical/jocular problems it's ridiculous to regulate it so heavily.

      "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" - The Writings of George Washington (1794)

    3. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using hemp as a fuel source would only further contribute to the growing problem of deforestation, something its proponents conveniently ignore.

    4. Re:Just use hemp. by Da3vid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts You can't take oil from the plant, use the rest of the plant to grow more plants, take oil from them, rinse, repeat.

      If you're going to take things from the system, you have to add things to the system somewhere. Whether those resources are added naturally or artificially, there has to be input somewhere.
    5. Re:Just use hemp. by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A hectare (2.47 acres) of jatropha produces 1,892 liters (500 gallons) of fuel. 202 gallons per acre.

      Hemp seed yields 15 gallons per acre.

      As much as I think hemp is a valuable crop - which it certainly is - the jatropha seems like a better choice for biofuel production. Over 12 times better, in fact.
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:Just use hemp. by mconeone · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm guessing the sun, water, and soil play a part...

    7. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the 'conspiracy versus hemp, the wondrous plant that could solve all food, clothing, energy and materials needs' prophecy is interesting and entertaining, it fails to take into account the enormous number of countries where industrial hemp is perfectly legal to grow in large quantities yet fails to be adopted.

      To put it this way, when Kim Jong-il does not clothe his masses in hemp, make them eat hemp cakes and drive his jet skis on hemp fuel, the reason is probably not that he is a CIA operative or bribed by the cotton industry.

    8. Re:Just use hemp. by jtroutman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where did you get your figures? I ask because I'd be interested in reading more. What is the cultivation rate? Is that 202 gallons per acre per year? Per season?

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    9. Re:Just use hemp. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Soil is a limited resource. If the oil takes something from the soil then your soil oil will decline oiva time.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Just use hemp. by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      Maybe you haven't heard about photosynthesis, a process most plants use that uses carbon dioxide and energy in the form of sunlight to make hydrocarbons? (the CO2 comes out of the cars burning the oil and out of animals as they metabolize hydrocarbons)

    11. Re:Just use hemp. by h2_plus_O · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using hemp as a fuel source would only further contribute to the growing problem of deforestation, something its proponents conveniently ignore.
      Not necessarily. Hemp farmed for fuel could, once it's been processed for oil, be used as a source of fiber- which is one of the primary reasons we cut down trees today. Why would anybody clear-cut forests if hemp fiber was cheaper?
      Hemp makes better paper with fewer chemical processes than wood pulp. It makes an outstanding fabric, and has been demonstrated to produce excellent building material- and it grows much faster than trees. It's a damn shame we've outlawed it.

      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    12. Re:Just use hemp. by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a very good biomass source, it grows just about everywhere.

      It's a terrible fuel crop, yeilding far less biodiesel than many more popular options like soy. It's better than corn, but corn is a terrible biofuel crop.

      Your reasons for pushing Hemp surely have nothing at all to do with it's biofuel properties.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:Just use hemp. by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't take oil from the plant, use the rest of the plant to grow more plants, take oil from them, rinse, repeat. As long as you are just taking hydrocarbons out you can, since those can be produced from carbon dioxide and water. You're bound to get trace amounts of things like phosphorus, sulfur and potassium in the oil, but if the amounts are small then replacing them is easy. Wind blown dust will do some of that with no effort by the grower.
      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    14. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that oil is a short-chain hydrocarbon, and both hydrogen and carbon are available in abundance in the air and soil via. natural cycles with replenish them, I doubt it's much of a concern. It's not like you'll have to grow clover every four years to lock in some nitrogen or something.

    15. Re:Just use hemp. by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Just use hemp. by chad.koehler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget that a lot of clear cutting (in tropical areas) is not for fiber but for agriculture. If hemp were more widely used and in higher demand there is potential for MORE deforestation as the price for the easily grown hemp would increase the potential profits from clear-cut agriculture in the rain forests.

    17. Re:Just use hemp. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Constitution was drafted on hemp paper.

      My newspapers don't even last a month...

    18. Re:Just use hemp. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't solve the problem of big agribusiness cutting down trees to grow such profitable cash crops. Like Brazilian agribusiness (not necessarily owned by Brazilians) chopping down the rain forest to grow soy. This new miracle crop will only make deforestation more economically appealing, unless it turns out to be completely unprofitable. Which is doubtful considering the ethanol-esque government subsidies it is likely to receive, should the technology pan out. Hell, it doesn't even have to pan out, ethanol sure hasn't.

    19. Re:Just use hemp. by rossifer · · Score: 5, Informative
      In the coarsest terms, plants require both bioavailable carbon and bioavailable nitrogen along with a few other nutrients to grow. The atmosphere supplies bioavailable carbon to plants through CO2. But atmospheric nitrogen is not usable by plants. Bioavailable nitrogen must be supplied to plants through their roots, and it doesn't just appear in soil and water. Some nitrogen appears in topsoil, but agriculture will quickly deplete nutrient supplies. If they aren't replaced, you end up with productivity losses, loss of cropland, and in the worst case, desertification.

      Means of nutrient replacement:
      1. Tilling animal manure into the soil.
      2. Tilling composted plant material into the soil.
      3. Planting nitrogen fixing plants (peas, beans, etc.) and then tilling them into the soil.
      4. Leaving the field fallow (without a crop) for several years (a slower version of (2)).
      5. Adding fertilizer
      So what this article is claiming is that the seedcake left over from oilpressing contains all of the nitrogen and other nutrients needed to restore the soil using just technique (2). That's an extraordinary claim. This plant is not a legume or one of the other nitrogen fixing plants, so by itself, cannot increase the amount of nitrogen in the soil. Some of the nitrogen will be unusable in the seedcake, some of the nitrogen needed to grow the plant will go into other parts of the plant that will have other economic uses or take too long to compost. A 100% cycle of nitrogen back into the soil would be great, but doesn't make any sense.

      As for the sun and water, well, they can only do so much given that neither one is a supply of the nutrients needed to keep the soil healthy.

      Regards,
      Ross
    20. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you went specific, I was wondering why we just don't use 'weeds' in general. They grow EVERYWHERE!

      As I drive around town, they line the creeks and waterways. Considering the City cuts them down ever month or so, why are we not looking into using them for something other than a budget line?

      They have to have SOME value in energy, don't they?

    21. Re:Just use hemp. by Swaffs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would anybody clear-cut forests if hemp fiber was cheaper?

      To make room for more help fields.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    22. Re:Just use hemp. by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Hemp could solve so many environmental/economical/jocular problems it's ridiculous to regulate it so heavily.

      I have a call for you from the cotton lobby on line 1 . . .

    23. Re:Just use hemp. by Sandbags · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years: "Kudzu you assholes!!!"

      Not only is it a weed, it's practically a menace, damned near impossible to kill, grows over acres in a season, requires only rain as it produces its own nitrogen (no fertilizers needed) and grows almost everywhere in the USA and most other countries. It's also NOT poisonous, and actually smells quite nice (I wouldn't make perfume out of it, but at least not offensive).

      Using celulostic conversion processes (like the new facility being built near Atlanta Georgia will be diing using wood from trees) it can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply. It's easy to harvest and transport without complicated equipment (an industrial lawnmower would do just fine). We don't need any massive investments to start doing this TODAY. Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)

      In terms of ethanol per pound of material, it's not the best choice (some forms of algae do better), but in terms of ethanol per acre of land, or ethanol per dollar spent, I challenge you to find anything better!!!

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    24. Re:Just use hemp. by h2_plus_O · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that doesn't solve the problem of big agribusiness cutting down trees to grow such profitable cash crops.
      True, but that's a different problem, and it's one we've already got (as you point out).

      Using hemp solves a specific set of problems: it's better fuel than corn, better fiber than cotton or lumber, and it grows in places unsuitable for either. It's better than what we've got, and it doesn't introduce any new problems we don't already have. Is it the answer to all our ecological and energy problems? As you point out, no. But it's better than what we've got. We should use it, just like we should also use algae tanks, switch-grass, solar, wave, wind, and whatever else we can that'll be better than what we've got.
      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    25. Re:Just use hemp. by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we believed that your list was the only way nutrients entered the system, we'd have to believe that Earth had "soil" before life evolved. ;)

      Nutrients come from all sorts of sources. Erosion can lead to dust, and dust deposits provide nutrients (one of the prime seeders of life in the open ocean). Lichen can also break down rock. Microbes and simple abrasion can do their share in more typical farm environments. Then there's the waste and remains of transitory animals (birds, rodents, etc). As for nitrates in particular, there are all sorts of ways they can enter a given patch of soil (for one, they're water soluble...), and plants vary greatly in their need for them.

      Basically, what this article is saying is that the oil from this weed removes so little nutrients that if you return the remains to the soil, whatever was lost is made up for by various means of natural replacement.

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    26. Re:Just use hemp. by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what this article is claiming is that the seedcake left over from oilpressing contains all of the nitrogen and other nutrients needed to restore the soil using just technique (2). That's an extraordinary claim. This plant is not a legume or one of the other nitrogen fixing plants, so by itself, cannot increase the amount of nitrogen in the soil.

      Given jatropha is described as a weed, easily grown in soil too poor(eg. low in nitrogen), rocky or dry for crops , I really doubt this is a concern. Certain plants are so easy to grow, they are damn hard to kill. Ask any gardener.

    27. Re:Just use hemp. by hawk · · Score: 1, Funny

      >Wind blown dust will do some of that with no effort by the grower.

      Fortunately, the FSF has lawyers to stop folks who freeload off others' dust while not returning their own dirt . . . :)

      hawk

    28. Re:Just use hemp. by smaddox · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I think you are missing the point.

      NOTHING is better than what we've got.

      Oil and coal an order of magnitude easier/cheaper to use than anything else.

      Nuclear energy is safe and virtually unlimited. It is also fairly cheap (just not as cheap as oil).

      Eventually we WILL be forced to switch over to other forms of energy, but they will be inferior. Economic growth will slow, and people will starve.

    29. Re:Just use hemp. by Amouth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple answer - I live in the south - and if I ever catch someone planting Kudzu on purpose - i will beat the shit out of them.....

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    30. Re:Just use hemp. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not only is it a weed, it's practically a menace, damned near impossible to kill, grows over acres in a season, requires only rain as it produces its own nitrogen (no fertilizers needed) and grows almost everywhere in the USA and most other countries.

      Uh... Yeah, "uncontrollable growth" isn't exactly what I call a strong selling point for agriculture.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:Just use hemp. by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      The oil taken from the plants comes from photosynthesized water + CO2. If you dump the processing leftovers back onto the the field, the minerals and other elements go back where they came from to help the cycle continue.

      If you look at dandelion, this stuff grows out of cracks in concrete blocks, solid rock and other bare surfaces where nearly nothing else is able to grow. These things use their roots mostly for water storage. Weeds tend to grow anywhere whether you want them to or not - they only need minimal grip to stay put, some water and that's pretty much it - that makes them extremely low-maintenance crops.

    32. Re:Just use hemp. by fizzup · · Score: 1

      It's also worthwhile to point out that Jatropha is nitrogen fixing. As long as the plant can be removed (the "weed" part gives me pause), this could be a money-making fallow crop, with the later crop using the nitrogen "fertilizer" left behind by the Jatropha.

    33. Re:Just use hemp. by fizzup · · Score: 1

      Oops. My bad. Jatropha is not nitrogen fixing.

    34. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hemp... has been demonstrated to produce excellent building material. Yes, but if it ever catches fire, the firemen on the scene just stand around breathing deeply and going "Dude! Look at the pretty flames!" and "Don't bogart that house! Let everybody have a toke!"

    35. Re:Just use hemp. by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Okay, for anyone who's ever even heard of kudzu, it seems like the first thing to try for an application that needs raw biomass. So why aren't we already using it to power our cars?

    36. Re:Just use hemp. by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When people talk about how hemp is good for everything under the sun, it always reminds me of those snake-oil cure-alls hawked by travelling vendors in the 1800s. ;)

      The simple facts are that industrial hemp is a useful product, and it's dumb that it's as regulated as it is, but it's not some sort of miracle plant. Its fibers make good rope, but as far as cloth manufacture goes, it's too coarse for most applications (most hemp fabrics used in clothing and upholstery are blended with linen, cotton, or silk). It's not even a standout, fiber-wise, when compared with jute, sisal, or manila -- similar strength, but hemp is more susceptible to rot. It's hardly the only replacement for wood pulp for the paper industry -- kenaf looks better, for example (whiter (less bleaching needed), higher yield, stronger, cleaner, etc). 15 gallons per acre is pretty absymal for a "next generation" biofuel; switchgrass ethanol is expected to produce hundreds of gallons per acre, and grow on similar "waste" land. Hemp oil is similar to linseed oil -- it dries on contact with air. Great for oil based paints, but not so much for many other oil applications. It also goes rancid relatively quickly, and is poorly suited to frying.

      Yes, hemp has good things about it. And, wow, are they ever trumpetted from the hilltops by hemp advocates. Google search anything related to hemp products -- hemp paper, hemp rope, or whatever, and you'll be treated to result page after result page of all sorts of wild claims from sites like druglibrary.org, organic-items.com, marijuanalibrary.org, hemp-union.karoo.net, beyondpeak.com, hemptons.co.za, ecomall.com, hempline.com, webofcreation.net, hemphasis.net, and on and on. All sorts of "trippy" URLs (often, strangely, with "marajuana" in the URL, despite the invariable repeated pointing out that there's little to no THC in industrial hemp), with "trippy" sites, with crazy claims. You find very little from legitimate sources until you get way down the list, and the picture is no longer completely rosy.

      Seriously -- settle down people. It's a plant, not manna from heaven.

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    37. Re:Just use hemp. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      You seem to have overlooked symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria in your list.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    38. Re:Just use hemp. by rossifer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nitrogen fixing plants use nitrogen fixing bacteria to do their "nitrogen fixing" thing. That was number (3) on my list as the only way to get enough nitrogen fixing bacteria into the soil is attached to the root systems of the plants that support them.

      Regards,
      Ross

    39. Re:Just use hemp. by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the south, but from the looks of this picture, you can beat the shit out of someone for me. Thankfully South Dakota is basically outside of the environmental range for this stuff to grow properly.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    40. Re:Just use hemp. by Sammy+Aran · · Score: 1

      That is the same reason I oppose Jatropha. No natural predators, weed -- obviously a great thing to introduce into a foreign environment!

    41. Re:Just use hemp. by radl33t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using celulostic conversion processes ... can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply.

      What kind of cellulose processing is that? I don't know of any methods that can do any one of those three, let alone all of them. I claim that processing cellulose, hemi cellulose, and lignin is difficult, inefficient, and expensive. To me, this explains why tech has not developed commercially. Since you deny each of my claims, what do you propose have been the commercial constraints?

      Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)

      Um except the science. Please forward me to a description of a process that is "easy, efficient, and cheap." No top secret Company X propaganda either please.

      Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years
      Screaming nonsensical claims won't advance your agenda.

    42. Re:Just use hemp. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts

      This just makes me chortle.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    43. Re:Just use hemp. by rossifer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we believed that your list was the only way nutrients entered the system, we'd have to believe that Earth had "soil" before life evolved. ;)
      That list is of the means that can supply agriculturally significant quantities of nutrients. i.e. agricultural replenishment. Sure there are other mechanisms that create natural topsoil, but they operate over timeframes that don't permit dedicated agriculture.

      Basically, what this article is saying is that the oil from this weed removes so little nutrients that if you return the remains to the soil, whatever was lost is made up for by various means of natural replacement.
      Yup. And that's a truly extraordinary statement. Not to completely shoot down the possibility that this wonder-weed can do everything claimed. But it would be the first primary crop plant that was actually self-fertilizing.

      I'm just a skeptic. Not that I wouldn't be excited if this stuff was real, but the claims made by the proponents seem way beyond how all other plants work.

      Regards,
      Ross
    44. Re:Just use hemp. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems).

      Why are any of the biodiesel plans (say switchgrass to biodiesel) any different from that? Hell, they're a bit better because there are already a significant number of diesel vehicles and there is already a complete diesel fuel distribution system in place.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    45. Re:Just use hemp. by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not really that exceptional; there's even a term for it ("pioneer species").

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    46. Re:Just use hemp. by hazem · · Score: 1

      Well, let's think about what's in oil. As far as I can tell from Wikipedia most of the oils in plants are made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, all of which is available from the atmosphere.

      So, it's possible the plant doesn't take anything from the soil to make the oils and when you return the other parts of the plant to the soil, you're keeping it replenished.

      Of course, the atmosphere itself is a limited resource but if we're taking the CO2 and H2O (and maybe O2) to make the oil and then burn it to make H20 and CO2, it's pretty much a nice cycle - as sustainable as it probably gets.

    47. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it's hard to see the trees for all of the kudzu. But, it's also hard to see the single-wide sitting next to a rusty pot still and pig pen.

      I contend that we should all be thankful for the kudzu.

    48. Re:Just use hemp. by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      Chortle - Wince, Chortle -Wince, repeat...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    49. Re:Just use hemp. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 1

      NOTHING is better than what we've got.

      ... other forms of energy ... will be inferior. Well, oil is killing the planet and is the cause for resource wars and is going to run out one day (not anytime soon though). Biofuels on the other hand, use energy from the sun, which will last a great deal longer than fossil fuels. Solar electricity is even better: it uses energy from the sun and is doesn't pollute (besides to manufacture the panels). I'd say there are a great deal of better option than what we've got now.

      Economic growth will slow, and people will starve. Not everything should be ruled by the economic "law" of supply and demand. Why not decide what to do based upon human need? Maybe we could enable those presently starving to produce their own food with some renewable energy.
    50. Re:Just use hemp. by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A hectare (2.47 acres) of jatropha produces 1,892 liters (500 gallons) of fuel. 202 gallons per acre.

      The US consumes about 400 million gallons of gas and 70 million gallons of diesel per day. At 200 gallons per acre per year, we'd need to plant 850 million acres of jatropha to replace petroleum. According to Google, that's about 1.3 million square miles, or about a third of the land area of the United States.

      Since we currently only cultivate 440 million acres[pdf], that would be a significant challenge.

    51. Re:Just use hemp. by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      And lead in paint makes the colors brighter!!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    52. Re:Just use hemp. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      err, plants don't grow in soil indefinately. "soil" is infact sand/clays with organic matter in it which is broken down by nitrifying bacteria. if you keep taking nitrogen out of the system by harvesting the plants and taking their oil, you won't grow more then 1 - 2 years worth of crops.

      hence why we keep telling or the retards who think bio diesel is a magic bullet, that it is infact NOT so fantastic.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    53. Re:Just use hemp. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      You've never had a garden in your life have you. dust blowing in and lichen breaking down on rocks is no where near the nitrogen you need to farm such a crop. in fact, if this thing grows as quick and as weed like as promised, it HAS to consume large amounts of N.

      TFA is clearly confused with the idea of fertilising itself with the left over seed cake. All the plants energy goes into making it's oil, once you squeese out the oil you have an energy defeicit. this is not a complete cycle, and cannot sustain the crop for long.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    54. Re:Just use hemp. by pla · · Score: 1

      You don't get high from smoking industrial hemp.

      You say that like you intend it as a selling point, rather than as a downside.

      Regardless of your stance on adults choosing to consume one of the oldest and safest intoxicants known to mankind for pure and simple recreation, keep in mind that your pet issue here suffers from the same people that recently made it substantially more annoying for 100% law-abiding allergy sufferers to obtain the single most effective non-intoxicating substance (pseudoephedrine) that safely (compared to, say, phenylephrine, an older drug that doesn't work as well and causes significantly greater increase in blood pressure) relieves their symptoms, all in the name of stopping idiots already willing to risk their lives from manufacturing methamphetamine, a substance that we should praise for its great work in narrowing the field of Darwin-award recipients.

      [catches breath in one great long inhalation].

      As long as borded college kids can't smoke weed, your cause of industrial hemp will remain DOA.

    55. Re:Just use hemp. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      No, dust blowing in the wind is not a large enough source of organic matter to replenish the nitrogen in the soil. you fail.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    56. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, oil -doesn't contain any nitrogen-. They can harvest the whole plant, take the oil out, grind the rest of the plant down if wanted and use -the entire remaining mass- of the plant as fertilizer. Since there is no nitrogen in the extracted mass (oil), everything that is pulled from the soil would be returned to it. As someone else stated, the compounds found in the oil would mostly come from atmospheric CO2 and water.

    57. Re:Just use hemp. by h2_plus_O · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NOTHING is better than what we've got.
      One thing we've got today is corn-based ethanol, soaking up appalling amounts of subsidies, sitting on prime farm acrage. Hemp would, among other potentials, be a much better use of those resources with today's technology. As noted elsewhere in this thread, not a miracle plant, but it is regulated in a dumb way.

      Oil and coal an order of magnitude easier/cheaper to use than anything else.
      Oil and coal are easier and cheaper because:
      • We've already invested in the infrastructure and technology needed to efficiently exploit them, and
      • We don't figure many of the costs of using coal and oil (environmental, health, war, economic, etc) into the real cost- we instead externalize those costs from the way we measure and call it cheaper and better when in fact it is neither.

      Economic growth will slow, and people will starve.
      People are starving today, too- switching to sustainable fuel (if not done moronically, which you seem to suggest is the only way) won't be the cause of it- it'll just be happening at the same time.
      Economic growth is slowing today, as well- some of that due directly to our use of fossil fuels (think: pollution, environment, health care, mercury in food, etc).

      Technology is, I think, the key out: for every gas-pumping job lost (this will probably happen when gas becomes more expensive than the alternatives), there'll be another gained somewhere else- developing infrastructure, technology, installing solar panels or writing software for a domestic energy exchange among micro-producers, whatever. Fuel won't crowd food out in the market, it'll hit the same price ceiling fuel does and people will buy food, or grow it and show a profit- next to food, fuel demand is elastic. As energy production and distribution technology becomes something affordable by the average person (who can't bear the expense of drilling, exploration, transport, refining, etc. themselves) expect to see distributed micro-generation systems that will to some extent democratize the production of energy. To wit, I don't think we're in the best of all worlds and the future is bleak; I think we're pretty hosed now and we can (and will) do better.
      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    58. Re:Just use hemp. by kiracatgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a farmer or anything, but you should take into account that most crop plats have entire substantial portions of the plant completely removed. The fruit, the seeds, the leaves, sometimes the entire plant, and so on. In this case, however, all that's being actually removed is the oil from the fruit, and the rest of the fruit is being dropped back on the plants. I don't think there are any other primary crop plants where the bulk of the harvested material is even considered for being used as fertilizer, as the point of a crop plant is that the harvested material is wanted as the crop.

      Not that I'm saying it will work; just that it doesn't seem as blatantly impossible to me as you say.

    59. Re:Just use hemp. by rthille · · Score: 3, Funny

      My god, if we let these plants go wild, they'll strip the atmosphere of everything we need to live!

      <grin>

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    60. Re:Just use hemp. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Certainly, decide what to do based on human need.

      Now, who decides what those needs are and how to fill them? And who does all the heavy lifting? How do the logistics work, exactly?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    61. Re:Just use hemp. by localman · · Score: 1

      How the hell did this get modded "Insightful"? By what crystal ball do you determine that we've already discovered the best way to do everything? I'm sorry, but I call bullshit, though I'm sure people have been shouting the similar things in fear since before we had oil, coal, and nuclear, too. "NOTHING is better than what we've got" indeed.

      Here's the deal: mankind needs more and more energy to continue growing. Some of our sources are not sustainable or if they are, won't grow to keep up. So in each case they need to be supplemented or replaced, whichever is more appropriate. So we've got to keep looking at ways to increase our energy sources and use energy more efficiently. Simple as that. Sorry to be so closeminded about this, but if you don't agree with the preceding statements, you're woefully ignorant.

      And I believe we are looking for more energy sources, and ways to use energy more efficiently. And to the degree that such efforts aren't hampered by fear and ignorance, we have a pretty good chance of staving off the collapse of humanity for a good long while.

      Cheers.

    62. Re:Just use hemp. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      Thats a far too optimistic outlook. your assuming it's 100% efficent harvesting the oil. in real terms, it's no where near that.

      don't get me wrong, i'm sure it's a tough weed and doesn't need much fertilizer to grow, and composting the remaing seed husks is a valid idea, but it's stupid to think they wont' need anythign extra.

      I don't understand why people are able to be so sceptical about oil companys claims, yet when someone comes up with hair brained schemes and slap a "BIO" or "GREEN" on the label people just accept it.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    63. Re:Just use hemp. by Scyber · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point.

      NOTHING is better than what we've got.

      Oil and coal an order of magnitude easier/cheaper to use than anything else.
      Actually thats not entirely true. Alternative fuels are probably just as easy/cheap to use (heck, biodiesel can be used in existing diesel engines). The issue is the cost to make the alternative fuels. No one ever compares the cost to make oil & coal (lots of bio-mass, a few million years...). Take the raw material costs out of any product and it certainly seems a lot cheaper than its competition.
    64. Re:Just use hemp. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The oil ideally contains no nitrogen. Fatty Acids are bits of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. So the Nitrogen that was taken out of the soil is primarily a part of the plant, some of it is bio-available, some of it is not. The breakdown of compost into the soil is done by fungus and bacteria, which are often capable of fixing nitrogen.

      The energy to take carbon, oxygen and hydrogen and turn it into a hydrocarbon is from the Sun. And the material is from the rainfall and atmosphere.

      Usually composting the same plant back into the soil and adding nothing else can throw off the pH as well as the ratio of mineral content. You'll be putting a lot of material back into the soil (that was pulled from the atmosphere) in comparison to the trace elements. Eventually it will be decomposing as fast as you are replacing it, but it takes a while to get to that state of equilibrium.

      I would say for small scale use, this plant seems likely to be practical. For highly efficient industrialized farming, you would want to add additives and fertilizers regularly.

      Poor farmers can do normal crop rotations, or if they make enough money selling the oil they can afford to purchase manure and till it into the soil for next season.

      I'm not sure if old shrubs or new shrubs yield better seeds, so crop rotation may not be practical. You can't easily rotate fruit trees for example, nobody is chopping down olive groves and planting peanuts to fixate the soil.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    65. Re:Just use hemp. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      errr, there's no need to make the oil and coal, hence it's cheaper and better. the parents argument is valid - it's the best we have, so we should use it and not cripple our selfs to satisfy middle class guilt about the environment.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    66. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh i'm not saying you won't need absolutely any extra, but you'd likely need a lot less extras to grow that stuff than what would be needed for corn/ethanol and it seems to grow in considerably poorer soil, thus opening up a lot of land area that would be unusable for more demanding crops.

    67. Re:Just use hemp. by timpaton · · Score: 1

      Your reasons for pushing Hemp surely have nothing at all to do with it's biofuel properties.

      The reasons for pushing hemp have everything to do with the fact that it's a banned crop.

      If farmers were allowed to grow industrial hemp, it could succeed or fail on its own merit.

      Chances are, it's not half as good as the rose-coloured-glasses pro-hemp crowd believe it is. We just don't know for sure.

      But even if it is half as good...that might be good enough to be worthwhile. If it's better than what we do now, and there's no more downsides than what we do now, then let's do it.

      If nothing else, lifting the ban will shut the pro-hemp hippies up every time biofuel or textiles or paper pulp is mentioned.

    68. Re:Just use hemp. by Scyber · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing with his main point, merely nitpicking on the choice of words. Use costs differences are pretty insignificant between oil/coal & alternative fuels. Its the manufacturing/extraction are where the costs are much different.

    69. Re:Just use hemp. by G-funk · · Score: 2, Funny

      From where in the word "hydrocarbon" did you get "nitrogen"?

      You fail.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    70. Re:Just use hemp. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      We just don't know for sure.

      We don't? It was grown for something like 150 years in the US, and is still grown widely outside this country. How could there possibly be anything we don't know about hemp already?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    71. Re:Just use hemp. by acidrain · · Score: 1

      it's "the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts."

      --
      -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    72. Re:Just use hemp. by Copid · · Score: 1

      ...not cripple our selfs to satisfy middle class guilt about the environment.
      I'm thinking that we might be better off if we stopped painting what may well be enlightened self interest as "middle class guilt." Burning all of my garbage may be the easiest way for me to get "rid" of it, but it kind of sucks if you're downwind from me, and it's certainly a bad call if everybody in the city decides to do it. Would pushing against everybody burning huge heaps of trash be an issue of guilt or simply good long term governance?
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    73. Re:Just use hemp. by qralston · · Score: 1

      Plus, you can eat kudzu. Makes a tasty salad, from what I've heard.

      (Just make damn sure that it wasn't sprayed with an herbicide first.)

      --
      Your bank is insolvent.
      Taking Money Back
    74. Re:Just use hemp. by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Oil is just carbon and hydrogen - the carbon comes from CO2 and the Hydrogen from H2O aka water for those raised in American public schools with no budget for chemistry. So yeah they can keep getting oil indefintely without depleting the soil - the oil is just acting as a carrier of solar energy from the sun stored by the plant

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    75. Re:Just use hemp. by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Uh, wouldn't that make it an invasive species?

    76. Re:Just use hemp. by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I am from the south (though not currently there), and I'll concur. There's a poem about it by a fellow named Dickey. I don't particularly like the style, but this photo really reminds me of it and the creepy, almost hopelessness of doing battle with kudzu. I tried to post it, but slashdot doesn't seem to allow poetry. You can view it here.

      By the way, kudzu vines can literally grow 1ft/day from an established taproot, and each taproot can throw out 30 vines in a year and weigh in at several hundred pounds. There are stories of little old ladies' houses being completely covered as they couldn't keep up with removing the crap.

      Thankfully it is nearly sterile and almost always spreads vegetatively. God help us if it ever becomes easily bird-disseminated.

      Sam

      The lameness filter doesn't like linebreaks so here is some breakless Shakespeare Enter KING HENRY, LORD JOHN OF LANCASTER, the EARL of WESTMORELAND, SIR WALTER BLUNT, and others KING HENRY IV So shaken as we are, so wan with care, Find we a time for frighted peace to pant, And breathe short-winded accents of new broils To be commenced in strands afar remote. No more the thirsty entrance of this soil Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood; Nor more shall trenching war channel her fields, Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs Of hostile paces: those opposed eyes, Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven, All of one nature, of one substance bred, Did lately meet in the intestine shock And furious close of civil butchery Shall now, in mutual well-beseeming ranks, March all one way and be no more opposed Against acquaintance, kindred and allies: The edge of war, like an ill-sheathed knife, No more shall cut his master. Therefore, friends, As far as to the sepulchre of Christ, Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross We are impressed and engaged to fight, Forthwith a power of English shall we levy; Whose arms were moulded in their mothers' womb To chase these pagans in those holy fields Over whose acres walk'd those blessed feet Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail'd For our advantage on the bitter cross. But this our purpose now is twelve month old, And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go: Therefore we meet not now. Then let me hear Of you, my gentle cousin Westmoreland, What yesternight our council did decree In forwarding this dear expedience. WESTMORELAND My liege, this haste was hot in question, And many limits of the charge set down But yesternight: when all athwart there came A post from Wales loaden with heavy news; Whose worst was, that the noble Mortimer, Leading the men of Herefordshire to fight Against the irregular and wild Glendower, Was by the rude hands of that Welshman taken, A thousand of his people butchered; Upon whose dead corpse there was such misuse, Such beastly shameless transformation, By those Welshwomen done as may not be Without much shame retold or spoken of. KING HENRY IV It seems then that the tidings of this broil Brake off our business for the Holy Land. WESTMORELAND This match'd with other did, my gracious lord; For more uneven and unwelcome news Came from the north and thus it did import: On Holy-rood day, the gallant Hotspur there, Young Harry Percy and brave Archibald, That ever-valiant and approved Scot, At Holmedon met, Where they did spend a sad and bloody hour, As by discharge of their artillery, And shape of likelihood, the news was told; For he that brought them, in the very heat And pride of their contention did take horse, Uncertain of the issue any way. KING HENRY IV Here is a dear, a true industrious friend, Sir Walter Blunt, new lighted from his horse. Stain'd with the variation of each soil Betwixt that Holmedon and this seat of ours; And he hath brought us smooth and welcome news. The Earl of Douglas is discomfited: Ten thousand bold Scots, two and twenty knights, Balk'd in their own blood did Sir Walter see On Holmedon's

    77. Re:Just use hemp. by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot to take out the erm... filler.

    78. Re:Just use hemp. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      You don't get high from smoking industrial hemp.

      I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The problem as I understand it is that it is difficult to tell the difference between it and the high THC variety, and it isn't a valuable enough crop (eg there are better things than it) to consider allowing it.
    79. Re:Just use hemp. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 1

      Now, who decides what those needs are and how to fill them? And who does all the heavy lifting? Not the people who are currently making these decisions, that's for sure. The responsibility of making and carrying out these decisions should be with the people that are most affected by the decisions, namely the people. Not CEOs or board members, who are completely unaccountable to the general public (unless you're rich enough to own some stock), but the general public itself.

      How do the logistics work, exactly? Well, the specific logistics of such a system could work out many different ways. But the way I personally prefer would be a town hall or city council type thing. Not the kind we currently have where politicians meet and talk and decide things, but a town hall with actual townspeople. They could meet every so often and talk about the issues that are affecting them, deliberate, vote, and make a decision about what action to take.

      But that's just my personal preference. There are many alternatives.
    80. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't read the article. I just saw the word WEED and felt; Wow! It's finally going to be legalized(for something). Now I no longer feel paranoid and nervous from sneaking a toot here and there.

    81. Re:Just use hemp. by Rei · · Score: 1

      I have a huge organic garden, thank you very much. And a greenhouse.

      No, not all plants like tons of nitrogen. Some hate it. A lot of plants will "burn" if they get too much nitrogen. The sensitivity varies widely.

      Since you didn't get the point about nitrates being water-soluble, let me be more explicit: water soluble nutrients migrate through the soil. They come in runoff, they come from adjacent plots and plants, they even come in rain (small amounts). It's all about how *much* is needed. If you have nitrate hungry plants, there's no way you'll get enough in this manner.

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    82. Re:Just use hemp. by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen-fixing bacteria are great, but the nitrogen they do bind up isn't released back into the soil until the nodules are dead.

      Non-inoculated clover, soybeans and other legumes grow just fine w/o the symbiotic bacteria, and will respond to nitrogen fertilizer just the same as any other plant, but at least for farmers, it sort of defeats the purpose (i.e., growing legumes to get at least some effect of the nodules binding to atmospheric nitrogen to water-soluble nitrogen compounds, so as to not have to use quite so much anhydrous ammonia or nitrate fertilizers next year for some other crop).

      Even with such an efficient crop, hopefully it's not all bunk. If it's as pernicious as it seems, it just might need some of Monsanto's evil gene manipulations just to keep it from getting established in the wild in areas it isn't native to.

      Plus, there are other questions... what soil temperatures does it like? does it grow well in acidic/alkaline soils? Does it survive long bouts of drought? Does it survive long, damp, cool winters (pacific NW, England, etc)? Does it stand bitter cold winders (upper midwest US, Russia, etc)?

      Before anyone starts growing it commercially in the US, if it's Roundup-resistant, there will be lots of upset crop farmers who will not put up with it. Some of them were burned by the jerusalem artichoke craze. Some of them closer to the southern US states will remember similar things being said about Kudzu.

      It's not the same plant as "meadowfoam", is it?

    83. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that you did not account for the annual growth.
      The current is around 2% per annum so figure you will need to double that amount of landmass every 35 years.

    84. Re:Just use hemp. by tashammer · · Score: 1

      didn't folks do anything about you spontaneously yelling "Kudzu, you assholes" at weddings, bar mitzvahs, railway stations, in the library etc? Do you have an obscure form of Tourettes Syndrome? he asked curiously.

    85. Re:Just use hemp. by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      If I have my calculations right, (using 32.6MJ/litre LHV for biodiesel and assuming the litres/acre figure is annualised production), the energy production rate is 0.5W/m. Considering insolation (depending on where you are) can be about 1400kWh/m.a, or approx 160W/m, it goes to show that biofuels, even the best of them, are pretty inefficient.

    86. Re:Just use hemp. by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Apologies for replying to my own post, but the 'm' units should be 'sq m' (m^2). Slashdot stripped the superscript 2s from my post.

    87. Re:Just use hemp. by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Since they only remove the oil from the plant and return the rest to the soil as fertilizer and since the oil they remove doesn't have any nitrogen or other minerals, then, yes, the result is that you can use the pressed residue as a complete fertilizer to return everything back to the soil that the plant needs to grow again.

      Oil is basically a hydrocarbon chain with some oxygen here and there. These components come from water and CO2 in the air.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    88. Re:Just use hemp. by emilper · · Score: 1

      You will need a lot of "extra": harvesters, transport, seed separators, oil presses, composting facilities and a lot of water for composting and manpower for preparing the compost heaps/tanks, cleaning, distributing the compost etc., storage for oil, oil refineries (yes, bio oil needs to be refined, even the oil used for cooking: otherwise your kitchen and your streets will stink to high heaven).

      Then there will come regulations because bio-oils contain enough extra organic molecules to cover the cities with toxic smog, worse than the diesel engines.

      At last, mineral fuels will be "rediscovered" as a source of reasonably clean and efficient energy, and the farmers in the third world that bought into the bio craze will go bankrupt, while the farmers in the US and EU will receive new subsidies.

    89. Re:Just use hemp. by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Most of the trees we cut down are trees planted for that purpose. If some other plant displaces pulpwood, less forest will be mantained. The landowners won't just 'let the trees stand' out of the goodness of their hearts.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    90. Re:Just use hemp. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you'd be planting it in Africa so who cares, right?

      (I'm not trolling really, its a very serious point about colonial abuse and exploitation of weaker nations). America will still have to become more energy efficient, sorry guys.

    91. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K! I would!

    92. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the same reason I oppose Jatropha. No natural predators, weed -- obviously a great thing to introduce into a foreign environment!

      Sounds like car-loving humans are going to be a very efficient predator. If this stuff is to replace billions of years of dead dinosaurs, we are going to harvest lots of it. Seriously, worst case you are worrying about ending up with more free, clean diesel than we are going to need for every car on the planet.

    93. Re:Just use hemp. by ccp · · Score: 1

      errr, there's no need to make the oil and coal, hence it's cheaper and better.

      So, I assume they happen to appear in your tank or furnace just by themselves. And refined. Lucky you.

      Cheers,
      CC
    94. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but hemp could be turned in paper products, and turn a very nice carbon tax rebate - while saving trees. The hemp oil would sell for a lot too, a good substitute for truffle oil when cooking.

      Secondly, Canola has a very high oil yield, but the last week of growing, is when the oil peaks, but if you get just a few hours of 'too hot' the seeds burst in the heat, and spill their oil, so it is a gamble of when to harvest. One imagines jatropha having like issues. Just to be cruel, the highest yield spurts are 'just before' maximum temperature, when the pod bursts.

      Thirdly, any 'wonder' crop will sour the soil, and nothing will grow, hence the grow once, then move on and clear another patch farming as going on in the Amazon and Indonesia. Yield=growth=nutrients, everything is a tradeoff, and nothing is free.

      Finally, once you crop, real food crops may not grow there again. Good farmers practice sustainable farming, bad ones ruin it for generations.

    95. Re:Just use hemp. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Impressive as it is with the jatropha plant producing 202 gallons per acre of biodiesel fuel, you still have the issue of setting aside land and having to set up an agricultural infrastructure on a massive scale to grow them.

      I still appears that "growing" oil-laden algae is the best long-term solution, since algae grows extremely fast and has very high fuel density; best of all, oil-laden algae could be grown in seawater, nearly eliminating the enormous expense of water desalinization. The refining process of oil-laden algae not only gets you biodiesel fuel and heating oil, but also the solid waste from the processing could be processed further into ethanol, plant fertilizer and/or animal feed! :-) In fact, the oil from the algae could be run through a catalytic cracker and yield kerosene and possibly even gasoline.

    96. Re:Just use hemp. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful. Most people have a poor that misconception hemp = pots. Wrong. Pot can be used as hemp but hemp is not pot. Furthermore, hemp can be used as a fuel source, general lubricant, cooking oil, and even food. It is naturally drought and insect resistant. It grows just about every where. Current federal laws makes it illegal in the US. Canada and several other countries have already started experimenting with a hemp economy model; which is a much more complex subject for growers. Most recent agro-economy conversion experience most countries have is with the goober, including the US.

      Best of all, hemp is unlikely to deplete the largest fresh water supply available in the US like corn *is* doing. If you enjoy fancy things like eating and drinking, you are anti-corn-based ethanol, you just don't realize it yet. Frankly, only ignorant people (vast majority) and/or people wishing famine for the US and large portions of the world (US grows food for larger chunks of the world) want a corn-based-ethanol fuel source produced in the US.

      So if you enjoy little things like eating and drinking, make sure you let people know growing corn for ethanol in the US is a long term plan for famine. Not to mention, it's one of the reasons fuel is so expensive in many, many states.

      Reference:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

    97. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Mr. Rossifer, it sure seems like you're diminishing the role of nitrogen fixing bacteria here. It's not just a few crops that provide suitable nodules for the cultivation of these bacteria. Many crops are classified as green manure. I've seen way too many of these "won't somebody think about the soil" posts lately whenever there's any article about biofuels. Yeah, soil maintenance is a serious issue, but it's also a common issue that farmers all over the world deal with every day and not something that is suddenly looming as a disaster about to strike.

    98. Re:Just use hemp. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time telling if your serious, since you basically seem to imply that CEOs, politicians, and other various in-charge types aren't actually people. Are you parodying yourself?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    99. Re:Just use hemp. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 1

      ... you basically seem to imply that CEOs, politicians, and other various in-charge types aren't actually people. No that's not what I mean. Of course they're people. And they should be involved in decision making too, but they wouldn't play the rôle of CEOs, politicians, or whatever. They would have no more say about things than regular people would. Authority wouldn't be delegated to them and they wouldn't make decisions for people, rather each individual retains their authority that they would otherwise delegate and make decisions with people.
    100. Re:Just use hemp. by globalhemp · · Score: 1

      Hemp grown for seed = biodiesel

      Hemp grown for fiber = cellulosic ethanol

      Hemp is much harder to make assumptions for average tons per acre due to the fact that hemp is not grow as homogeneous as corn. From old notes, I have found that hemp produces 60 gallons of ethanol per dry ton. Therefore, if hemp averages 5 dry tons/acre, then one acre of hemp will produce 300 gallons of cellulose-based ethanol.

      Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey wrote an excellent article titled, "The New Petroleum" (Foreign Affairs, Volume 78 No. 1) which states, "First, a simple comparison of energy content reveals that a dry ton of biomass crops--$40 is a reasonable current average cost--is comparable to oil at $10-13 a barrel." Of course there are a lot of other variables and obstacles that need to figured in. I highly recommend that you read this article.

      One should note that dry whole stalks hemp currently sell for approximately $100 ton. This is far above the price of $40/ton suggested above. When I spoke with the Department of Energy (DOE) a few years ago, they informed me that hemp has always been a consideration however, if grown it would command too high a price due to the fact that hemp is too versatile and other markets would pay a higher price. The main focus for the DOE has been switchgrass and agricultural wastes.

      Professor Richard G. Lugar recently informed me that 1 bone dry ton (bdt) of biomass yields 75 gallons of ethanol. Professor Lugar further stated that yields of 100 gallons per bdt are expected in the future.

      Therefore, if hemp yields 5 bdt per acre, then one acre of hemp yields 375 gallons of ethanol; and potentially 500 gallons in the near future. This is quite a bit more than starch-based ethanol, such as those made from corn.

      Of course, some yields for hemp fiber can range as high as 10 bdt per acre, which doubles the yield per acre to as much as 1,000 gallons. This of course relies on genetics for both the biomass to cellulosic ethanol conversion as well as breeding of the hemp to produce 10 bdt per acre.

      Once again, ethanol from biomass versus biodiesel from vegetable oil.

      Eric Pollitt
      Global Hemp, Inc
      http://www.globalhemp.com/
      http://www.globalhempstore.com/

    101. Re:Just use hemp. by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      1st, it's already uncontrolled in most of the south.
      2nd, it's easy to contain with simple natural barriers (roads or a grass field barrier)
      3rd, it can be poisoned easily, and sefely, if it grows where you don't want it.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    102. Re:Just use hemp. by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      Here's a facility already under construction (comercial development) to do just what you say would be if it was feasible...
      http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2007/07/02/daily6.html

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    103. Re:Just use hemp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? A mere 15 gallons for an acre of hemp?! Dude, no way. . .and I'm from NorCal.

    104. Re:Just use hemp. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      If farmers were allowed to grow industrial hemp, it could succeed or fail on its own merit.

      What, you mean in the free market like all other crops in the US?
      If that were the case, then why exactly are we still talking about ethanol from corn?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    105. Re:Just use hemp. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      One thing we've got today is corn-based ethanol, soaking up appalling amounts of subsidies, sitting on prime farm acrage.

      This is exactly the point I am trying to get at. All these biofuels require a non-renewable resource - the most important one we have - land. For every acre of coal strip-mines we don't utilize, we will need hundreds, if not thousands of acres of farm land. True, with proper crop rotation, the land can be used indefinitely, while strip mines run out of coal and must be covered up. However, with the constant growth of energy demands, we are just as limited on land for biofuels as we are on oil and coal (if not more so).

      Not to mention that every acre, tool, fertilizer and pesticide that is used for biofuel is one that isn't used to grow food. Unless people in the future start eating less, or find some way to significantly reduce the man-power required to grow and distribute food (which seems unlikely considering we would probably already be utilizing it), then the percentage of the worlds total man-power put towards growing food will need to remain fairly constant. If the food industry has to compete with the energy industry, it will drive up a demand for these items which cannot be quenched because doing so would throw off the man-power balance.

      I am all for renewable energy. I think solar-panels and wind power are a great way to slow carbon emissions. However I find it hard to believe these sources of energy will ever be dominant. Our only realistic option in my eyes is nuclear. Nuclear Fission plants are extremely expensive but extremely well researched. I haven't run the numbers, but I would imagine that diverting all of the money from biofuel, solar panel and wind turbine research and production (among others) into fission plants would more than quench our energy demands. With the use of breeder plants, we would not run out of fuel for centuries to come.

      Technology is, I think, the key out: for every gas-pumping job lost (this will probably happen when gas becomes more expensive than the alternatives), there'll be another gained somewhere else- developing infrastructure, technology, installing solar panels or writing software for a domestic energy exchange among micro-producers, whatever. Fuel won't crowd food out in the market, it'll hit the same price ceiling fuel does and people will buy food, or grow it and show a profit- next to food, fuel demand is elastic. As energy production and distribution technology becomes something affordable by the average person (who can't bear the expense of drilling, exploration, transport, refining, etc. themselves) expect to see distributed micro-generation systems that will to some extent democratize the production of energy. To wit, I don't think we're in the best of all worlds and the future is bleak; I think we're pretty hosed now and we can (and will) do better.

      The problem is not a lack of jobs. The problem is lack of resources for those jobs. For every job lost pumping gas, we will need 3 people working on an alternate energy source. If you only have 1 person, then we will have less energy, driving up costs. If energy costs more, then people will grow the biofuel crop rather than food, leading to an increase in food prices. Soon enough the only people who can eat are the people selling energy or growing food. This would lead to a mass breakdown of economy, and people would need to be either growing food or growing biofuels. Unfortunately the world can support only so many farmers.

      Obviously, in reality, none of this would ever happen, because we have a much better/cheaper source of energy already well researched and developed - nuclear fission. Biofuel crops would never become very expensive, because as soon as energy went up in price, a nuclear power company would take over the market.

      Every dollar that is waisted on biofuels translates to a portion of a fission plant's cost which would produce a certain amount of energy that could have been put forth towards something other than producing more energy.
    106. Re:Just use hemp. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that the energy density of the sun's radiation (which is directly or indirectly the source of all renewable energy sources) is nothing compared to that of fissile materials. It also turns out that the more space needed to produce energy, the more the energy is going to cost.

      Every dollar put into a source of energy other than fission (excluding fusion, if it ever works) is a dollar that could have been better spent (from the perspective of how much nuclear energy production it could have payed for). If we want to continue our economic growth, energy has to continually get cheaper. Therefore, every dollar put into renewable energy leads directly to a slowing (or lack of acceleration) of economic growth.

      Obviously I have left some claims unsupported, and some of them may turn out to not be entirely true, but there are many more angles I can take to show that fission is still the best source of energy.

    107. Re:Just use hemp. by h2_plus_O · · Score: 1

      The problem is not a lack of jobs. The problem is lack of resources for those jobs.
      It's far from that simple. There's un-tapped resources blowing by your head right now, and most of the resources we do use, we use inefficiently. Your roof isn't capturing sunlight and converting it to electricity, and it could be- which means the gas/oil/coal/electricity you're using to heat and cool your home could be re-tasked, but isn't. The amount of wind energy not being captured right now boggles the imagination. The amount of wave energy currently hammering the shores of this continent alone defy imagining. To say that there's a shortage of energy or resources is to fundamentally misstate the problem at hand. What there's a shortage of is ability to cheaply capture, store, and release on demand the energy that's all around us.

      The truth is we don't know what will work best 2 or 10 or 50 or 100 years from now. We don't know what technology breakthroughs will happen to make this or that capture/storage/release process cheaper or more efficient than it is today, and it's shortsighted to suggest that money not spent on fission reactors will be 'wasted'.

      One lesson we can learn from our problems today is that it's highly desirable to avoid a monolithic, centralized production model based on finite resources, and that the broader the supply base is, the better. If we migrate en masse to fission reactors, we'll eventually become dependent upon foreign uranium instead of dependent upon foreign oil, which will be a different version of the same problem we face today. What we want going forward is fungible energy, in a market where suppliers of wave, wind, solar, etc. compete for customers that are ideally not locked in to a single energy source.
      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    108. Re:Just use hemp. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      I understand that there is a large amount of energy that could be captured from wind, waves and solar. My point is that it is an order of magnitude more expensive than fission, and that the money spent on it could be better spent. From my point of view there is only one source of energy truly worth researching - fusion.

      Until we can build commercial fusion power plants, we should be building fission plants to supplant all of the coal and natural gas power plants. With enough fission plants our energy concerns would be all but dead. We would have plenty of fuel to last us until we can perfect fusion.

    109. Re:Just use hemp. by localman · · Score: 1

      I agree nuclear is our best current technology. We should use it as best we can, and continue to improve it. But I don't see how that means we should stop looking at other technologies, too. Diversity is good. Different technologies might apply better in certain situations. There is no silver bullet.

      Harvesting sun energy is a no-brainer -- supplementing power with (as of yet uninvented) efficient rooftop solar panels would be beneficial even for a primarily nuclear based system. Research into geothermal is also interesting: after visiting Iceland and seeing what they do with it there I was pretty impressed. There's a field in California that puts out as much power as a nuclear plant, so it is viable. But we aren't very good at extracting energy from the earth's core yet. Because it's to much energy at once... kind of like fusion.

      There's a lot of interesting things to figure out and improve upon. Don't close the book yet.

      Cheers.

    110. Re:Just use hemp. by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      nitrogen fixing plants are only providing favorable conditions for bacteria that actually perform the work of fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil. planting clover or peanuts along with the "weeds" and avoiding tilling would be much better. since it's not a food crop and additional biomass finding it's way into the processing plants would make little difference a mono culture is not necessary.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    111. Re:Just use hemp. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Well said. I can't argue with that.

      I still think biofuels are a waist of time and energy, though.

    112. Re:Just use hemp. by localman · · Score: 1

      I think you might be right... giving up arable land for industrial energy production seems a bit foolish. If we can get power elsewhere, we probably should.

      Cheers.

  2. Poor farmers by Descalzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Poor farmers living close to the equator are planting jatropha on millions of acres spurred on by big oil companies like British Petroleum that are investing in jatropha cultivation."
    How dare they exploit the poor farmers like this?

    Plus, this takes important jobs away from corn farmers in the USA.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:Poor farmers by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just wait 'till someone like the evil Monsanto figures out a way to genetically modify this weed to either boost the oil contents even further, or make it capable of growing in Antarctica, or both... Then we will get the showdown...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Poor farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they exploit the poor farmers like this?

      Easy, just say "hey wow! look at all the money you can make growing this instead of food!" and then once the farmers have ripped out all their food crops to grow this, say "lol! just kidding!" and pay them a tiny fraction of what they were originally promoting. Instant cheap biomass!

    3. Re:Poor farmers by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you joke. That's exactly how the politicians will spin it.

      --
      Deleted
    4. Re:Poor farmers by misleb · · Score: 1

      Easy, just say "hey wow! look at all the money you can make growing this instead of food!" and then once the farmers have ripped out all their food crops to grow this, say "lol! just kidding!" and pay them a tiny fraction of what they were originally promoting. Instant cheap biomass!


      And worse, they become less self-sufficient and have to import all their food.
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    5. Re:Poor farmers by Socguy · · Score: 1

      Only if they install a terminator gene so seeds cannot be used year after year without paying a licensing fee to Monsanto; Or if they engineer it to only grow with the aid of Monsanto brand fertilizer or herbicide.

    6. Re:Poor farmers by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

      And what would be wrong with either of those two steps? Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?..

      BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild — a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Poor farmers by arivanov · · Score: 1

      It does not actually.

      IIRC Americans are yet to hear about this wondrous thing invented by a German a while ago and perfected by French, German and Japanese (in that particular order).

      It is called diesel. It can run on nearly any sh**t starting from use oil from McDonalds and finishing with low grade heating oil and jet fuel. Including jatropha oil.

      One thing it cannot run on is ethanol. So the corn farmers in the USA are safe unless the USA market diseasel car engine share start approaching that in other countries. AFAIK it is 70%+ in France and 40-50% in the rest of EU.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Poor farmers by norton_I · · Score: 1

      BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild -- a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications.


      Yes, but those people suffer from an acute shortage of sense.
    9. Re:Poor farmers by michrech · · Score: 1
      "Dey took r JOOOBZZZ" -- South Park Rabble Rousers

      "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

      Plus, this takes important jobs away from corn farmers in the USA.
      --
      bork bork bork!
    10. Re:Poor farmers by Mr.+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And now that ULSD is here in the USA and the unreasonably low emissions requirements of the CARB cartel can be met thanks to particulate traps plus either three stage catalytic converters or urea injection systems, 2008 is going to be the beginning of the revolution. V6 diesels in small SUVs and light trucks and the return of the TDI Volkswagens and introductions of a few new Mercades diesels are all on the near-term horizon.

      The question remains whether the bad name that GM gave the passenger diesel here with their 350-derived 6.2 POS in the 80's will still stick. I hope not.

      I'll never buy another fullsize truck that burns gas, and I don't want another gas car either. I love my TDI Jetta (relatively nimble with some suspension upgrades and nice and quick with a few mods) and it loves me back (43+ US MPG while beating the snot out of it, 50+ on a highway cruise). I only wish it was simpler - legaly speaking - to convert my V8 Dodge Dakota to a diesel to at least double it's economy, but New York makes things difficult inspection-wise.

      --
      - MM
    11. Re:Poor farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?
      Nobody is forced to, but the shit tends to just kind of blow around and contaminate crops on surrounding farms ... then for good measure Monsanto sues the farmer who's seed stock they've destroyed.

      http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
    12. Re:Poor farmers by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      " I only wish it was simpler - legaly speaking - to convert my V8 Dodge Dakota to a diesel to at least double it's economy, but New York makes things difficult inspection-wise."

      Well, there are states where they don't do 'sniff' tests or the like on auto inspections, hell, there are still some that don't do inspections at all.

      You might look into that if you want more freedom to do what you wish with your vehicles...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Poor farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent green is FUEL!

    14. Re:Poor farmers by Socguy · · Score: 1
      If I'm feeding the trolls, let me apologize to all the readers out there in advance.

      And what would be wrong with either of those two steps? Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?.. In the narrowest sense you may be technically correct, yet your comment still rings naive. The ultimate goal of Monsanto, and others like Monsanto will be to insert itself inextricably into the food (energy) chain. No, I'm not being paranoid or citing conspiracy theories. Anything less would be violating their duty to their shareholders. Everyone needs to eat and if everyone has to pay your price before growing food there is a tremendous profit waiting to be extracted.

      BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild -- a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications. I agree, a terminator gene will likely prevent much of the GM plants from escaping into the wild, however, this argument is largely a red herring.

      First, let us put aside any moral or philosophical or religious objections to creating an organism that sterilizes itself. The biggest problem with the gene is what it means for the consumers and the farmers. Neither of those two groups have demanded such a gene, nor does the inclusion of such technology benefit them in any way, in fact, it's just the opposite. Many countries around the world refuse to accept GM products because they have yet to be tested in any meaningful scientific way. In order to retain those markets, farmers and grain companies must keep the two products separate, as there is no economically viable way to sort GM seeds from non-GM seeds. This means an entirely separate handling system infrastructure. This means an additional cost that is passed onto the consumer and back onto the farmer. For countries that don't choose to go that route, and choose instead to give up certain markets, their populations ARE now forced to consume Monsanto products because they are now mixed in with the rest of the food supply. This also means that farmers must now pay Monsanto every year if they wish to use their product, and it means that farmers must now pay SOMEONE ELSE if they wish NOT to use Monsanto product. Why? Because they must now purchase seed that is certified (guaranteed) not to contain Monsanto IP. If they don't they face Monsanto lawsuits, or face the possibility that half their crop fails to germinate. Obviously this additional cost is harmful to third world farmers but that's a further conversation.

      So if the farmers don't want 'terminator genes' and the consumers don't want 'terminator genes' why is Monsanto so keen to include them? Simple, Monsanto needs a way to ensure that farmers don't use any of their IP without paying. 'Terminator genes' really had nothing to do with the problem of cross-contamination. The fact that they may prevent cross-contamination has become a surreptitious PR argument/marketing point, and a way to distract from the problems associated with letting Monsanto and others get their hands on the food supply.
    15. Re:Poor farmers by mi · · Score: 1

      In order to retain those markets, farmers and grain companies must keep the two products separate, as there is no economically viable way to sort GM seeds from non-GM seeds.

      I'm no expert on agriculture, but I doubt the hurdles are as you describe them... Farmers either buy the seeds, or keep some from previous year. Either way people, one can opt in and out of using Monsanto's quite easily.

      [...] why is Monsanto so keen to include them? Simple, Monsanto needs a way to ensure that farmers don't use any of their IP without paying.

      Yes, not entirely unlike the DRM. And as long as they have that gene inserted, they don't need to chase anyone with their lawsuits, do they? Problems solved.

      Whoever wants to use their (superior) seeds, can do that — without worrying about subsequent "infringement". They will not be able to keep seeds for next year, but they (should) know about that upfront.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Poor farmers by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Actually, right now, there's hardly any market for it; and there's farmers who have turned their whole fields over to it, only to discover their entire field is only worth about $1.50. If they planted other crops they could have made a lot more. Last time I heard there wasn't even a refinery of any scale anywhere.

      Jatropha is really only any good for poor land which isn't useful for other more valuable crops.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    17. Re:Poor farmers by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      So the corn farmers in the USA are safe unless the USA market diseasel car engine share start approaching that in other countries.

      Cummins, in Columbus Indiana, is gearing up bigtime for small diesel engine production.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    18. Re:Poor farmers by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      I wish MORE states did 'sniff' tests for emissions. You can tell when you're driving behind an ill-maintained car. They STINK, and there aren't that many cars out there with the problem. It is an obvious maintenance problem that could be brought to the car owner's attention and taken care of. What I advocate is emissions sensors built right into squad cars and tickets just like the tickets for broken headlights.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    19. Re:Poor farmers by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      While I dislike the cars in bad shape, I don't like the gov. telling me what modifications I can make to my car for performance, and sound. I keep my cars maintained quite well....but, I like to put aftermarket pipes, air intakes....maybe turbo things, etc....

      I don't like being restricted so tightly. I'm close on emissions I'm sure....but, I hear in CA, that even if you met the air requirments...they will bag you just for mods.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:Poor farmers by Socguy · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on agriculture, but I doubt the hurdles are as you describe them... Farmers either buy the seeds, or keep some from previous year. Either way people, one can opt in and out of using Monsanto's quite easily. I am from an agricultural background and the hurdles are exactly as I describe them. Yes, you can save seed and re-plant it. What happens if you get drift from a neighbors field? You now have Monsanto IP in your crop. What level is acceptable before a lawsuit is filed? If the seed that blows over or your crop that gets cross-pollinated contains the terminator gene then you face the prospect of a significant portion of the crop you saved NOT GERMINATING. If you know anything about agriculture you will understand that this is potentially devastating. In the end you must either pay Monsanto for their seed or you must pay someone else for certified seed, guaranteed not to germinate and not to contain Monsanto IP. The idea of opt-in or out is simplistic at best and displays an alarming naiveté about agriculture in the 21st century.
    21. Re:Poor farmers by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      I am talking about ill maintained cars that stink because they're billowing blue smoke. Not over maintained cars that are tuned up for performance. When you mod your car for performance, it isn't so you can billow out 1/3 of the fuel un-ignited as carcinogenic fumes. That's what I am talking about.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
  3. Sounds similar by jtroutman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds like what they are doing in more arid regions with Jojoba , which is similar in that is grows in places other plants won't, requires little water and produces an oil that can power diesel engines.

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    1. Re:Sounds similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's jojoba? Where I'm from that's the month before November - The Big Yin

  4. This could be a problem... by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a noxious fast-growing weed, apparently kept in check in its native environment due to the fact that the soil and weather conditions there are terrible for growing anything. However, TFA mentions that various companies are looking at planting this thing all over the place, including areas that have good soil and growth-friendly climates.

    So what happens when we start planting this thing everywhere? Could this turn into the next kudzu?

    1. Re:This could be a problem... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Can you use Kudzu for anything beyond ground cover?

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    2. Re:This could be a problem... by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Could this be the next Chinese Sumac?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    3. Re:This could be a problem... by jtroutman · · Score: 1

      The roots can be ground to use as a thickener in soups and stews, the young leaves can be used like any other greens, and the flowers can be used to make jelly. Additionally, it can be processed into soap, lotion, paper, and cloth. It helps fight erosion and can also be used for animal feed.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    4. Re:This could be a problem... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Theoretically it could be used for animal feed...That's part of how it was originally pitched to farmers in the South, that their cows would eat it. Well, they may nibble the leaves, but that's about it.

      Goats, on the other hand, go to fricking TOWN on the stuff...They'll eat it right down to the roots, and can actually permanently clear kudzu from an area making them and napalm the best methods for getting rid of it. Considering how much goats eat, the two could form a hell of a relationship, assuming we could persuade anyone in this country to eat goat.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:This could be a problem... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      So what happens when we start planting this thing everywhere?

      I for one, would just welcome our new, fast growing, poisonous weedy overlords.

      It's easier that way, besides I hate yardwork.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:This could be a problem... by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but these folks seem determined to spread it nonetheless.

    7. Re:This could be a problem... by gregoryb · · Score: 1

      Unwanted car removal. Plant it in your front yard and in about 3 days flat all those old cars you have on blocks will completely disappear!

    8. Re:This could be a problem... by IgLou · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. Why aren't we looking at using existing invasive species to create biofuel. You pay people to extract the invasive species to protect indigenious ones and then take the extracted material to produce fuel. Where I live (Vancouver, BC) Himilayan Blackberry and English Ivy are a serious threat to native species. As much fun as it is to pick blackberry in the summer it's still scary how quickly this stuff takes over. What better way to to handle a problem?

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:This could be a problem... by skeevy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure! Ground cover, tree cover, house cover, car cover, fence cover, road cover, crop cover, ... The possibilities are endless!

    10. Re:This could be a problem... by notclevernickname · · Score: 1

      Jatropha actually has been cultivated as a fuel for a long time now. I had a prof from Kenya who was really excited about the first round of investments in Jatropha a few years ago by BP. He said that basically all major farms in Africa cultivate Jatropha to help offset fuel costs and that it is starting to be used by farmers in India. I think this is more of a case of people adapting a native plant (once considered annoying) into a fuel more than trying to spread it like kudzu was...

      --
      Free porn, no Bullshit - thebestlinklist.com
    11. Re:This could be a problem... by eln · · Score: 1
      It wouldn't be a big deal if you were right, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that way.

      From TFA:

      The plant is promising enough that companies across the world are looking at planting millions of acres of jatropha in the next few years, in places as far flung as Brazil, China, India and Swaziland. A company based in Singapore has announced plans to plant two million hectares, about 4.9 million acres, of jatropha in the Philippines.
    12. Re:This could be a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I was super pissed when they wiped out the best blackberry bushes in the park. They are actually useful, I made wine, jam, pie, hey it's free food, where else are you going to get that in Vancouver.

      Biomass though, how about Scotch Broom, they have been trying to get rid of that stuff on the islands since it was introduced, and it's poison, allergenic and good for NOTHING. Trouble is the damn stuff is so hard to get out of the ground, it's not worth the effort as a fuel. But it does grow fast, on any soil, and it makes a good bonfire or two every year just pulling up the ones on the road outside the house.

    13. Re:This could be a problem... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You left out that a lot of the area near the equator is rain-forest.
      If it is done correctly then it could be a help. If done poorly it will be a problem. Just like everything else in life from nuclear power to raising children :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:This could be a problem... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Just like everything else in life from nuclear power to raising children

      Based on how well the average human being deals with both of those, I think we're in big trouble.
      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    15. Re:This could be a problem... by Gravatron · · Score: 1
      Last year I went to a friend house for a party/BBQ and we cooked up some Goat. When we took it out of the freezer, we thought it was wild pork (Also a very good dish) and grilled it up. Once we figured out what it was, we ate it anyways, and it was actually pretty good.


      And Goats and napalm are effective for getting rid of kudzu eh? Makes me wonder if I could buy an airforce surplus A-10 and start a sort of Cropdusting/Kudzu napalming service.


    16. Re:This could be a problem... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I've seen 'em try other things...Anything that's toxic enough to permanently kill kudzu right down to the roots is going to screw up the land for a long time afterward. Fire will kill it, but if it's not hot enough it won't kill the roots, thus Napalm. Then there are goats, which are self-reproducing, edible, and excellent at killing the stuff off. Also, not much of a danger as an invasive species.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    17. Re:This could be a problem... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well at least as far of the raising of children goes I think you are overly pessimistic. The failures tend to get all the publicity. I teach a sunday school class with my wife and most of the kids are really great people in the making.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:This could be a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid people create people, intelligent people create ideas; Hence, more stupid people are being born to repeat the cycle.

    19. Re:This could be a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, especially considering that it is barely better than canola (aka rapeseed) :
      1 hectare of rapeseed = 1322 Litres of finished bio-diesel
      And canola isn't noxious. It is even used as animal feed, even after the oil is removed.

    20. Re:This could be a problem... by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Could this turn into the next kudzu? "Whatever their origin, when Triffids began sprouting all over the world, their extracts proved to be radically superior to existing vegetable and animal oils. Along with the resulting world-wide slew of Triffid farms, many households kept them as a curiosity, almost a garden pet, . . ."
      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    21. Re:This could be a problem... by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this.

      I've often wondered why more parks don't bring on goat-herders to help manage this stuff - I've seen trial runs and some local news blips about testing it, but nothing permanent. It seems like once you get it down off the tree canopy, a smallish herd would be plenty to manage a rather sizable area.

    22. Re:This could be a problem... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Here in Tennessee, there are goat owners who make extra income by renting goats to land owners for kudzu removal.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  5. Huh. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0

    I think I've got this stuff growing on my back fence. (No, really!) (Disclosure: I live in Florida).

    It seems like almost any plant oil could be used to make biodiesel, but this stuff does grow like a weed, even in sandy soil and drought conditions (both of which are present in my backyard). That's what would make it economically viable.

    Although, the fact that it does grow like a weed, means it still pulls out a lot of nutrients from the soil, which would make it hard to grow anything else on the same land. OTOH, it grows where other things already don't grow, so that's definitely a plus from an environmental point of view.

    Oh, and if BP or anyone else wants to pay me to grow more, let me know!

    1. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although, the fact that it does grow like a weed, means it still pulls out a lot of nutrients from the soil, which would make it hard to grow anything else on the same land.


      I wonder if you read the FA:

      But jatropha can grow on virtually barren land with relatively little rainfall, so it can be planted in places where food does not grow well. It can also be planted beside other crops farmers grow here, like millet, peanuts and beans, without substantially reducing the yield of the fields; it may even help improve output of food crops by, among other things, preventing erosion and keeping animals out.
    2. Re:Huh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Weeds don't tend to deplete the soil...Ecologically, they're the equivalents of platelets or anti-bodies...When the soil is damaged or depleted, the weeds move in. Jatropha is cited a few times as "fertilizing the soil" and the seed cakes formed after the oils are extracted are several times referred to as a good fertilizer, but there are no specifics on the method in which it does this.

      The traditional use of this stuff is to plant as fence rows around edible crops to keep grazing animals away, so it can't be that bad for the soil. The companies that are seeking to increase the production are asking farmers to intersperse the stuff with their regular food crops, which is the way we do peanuts, another soil rejuvenating plant.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When burned, do biofuels produce greenhouse gases just like petroleum?

    4. Re:Huh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sure...It's all hydrocarbons.

      The difference is that regular fuels release sequestered carbon, carbon that's been underground for a zillion years, and biofuels release carbon that is not currently sequestered. People argue that they're "Carbon Neutral" in that they don't add to the overall free carbon of the world because the carbon that they release when burned is brought right back in to the growing crops. The question is whether or not they're worth it in terms of energy; if they cost more to produce than they provide, then it's a stupid decision.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Huh. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It seems like almost any plant oil could be used to make biodiesel
      Well that's the beauty of it, any plant or animal oil or fat can be used to make biodiesel, even oils that have been previously used like restaurant fryer oil. Using Biodiesel doesn't have to exclude the oil being used for other purposes first.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  6. I am more impressed... by HerculesMO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with BP every day. They are the only major oil company to seem to "get" that oil won't last forever. They have invested money into solar technologies (walk into Home Depot), lowered their own emissions requirements to meet standards that don't even exist yet, and now are shown to be investing heavily into alternative "bio" fuels. Exxon and the like seem content to just pulling oil from the ground and putting it into pumps.

    Just a simple thought. They are still an "evil oil company" thus far as I can see... but at least they have vision for the future and aren't thinking oil will last forever as the Bush administration thinks it will.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:I am more impressed... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      They are still an "evil oil company" thus far as I can see... They re-branded themselves as an energy company a couple of years ago.

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:I am more impressed... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is nice on the surface.

      OTOH, it makes perfect sense that an energy company wants to maintain their dominance even after their original product (petroleum) runs out. Now if BP is busily publishing their research results on all of the alternate energies, cool... but if they're keeping it a secret (or at least hard-to-get), then it's merely a matter of going from being a dominant force in one segment of the energy industry towards being a dominant force in the others, before the rest realize what's up and tries to muscle in on its new-found turf.

      Now if BP was busily passing knowledge of its research along openly (a'la FOSS), then props to 'em. Otherwise they're not much more in my eyes than, say, MSFT adapting their products to run in some new technology with a lot of growth potential.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:I am more impressed... by Deagol · · Score: 1

      BP just realizes that there's tons of good PR to be made from appeasing to the "greenie weenie" demographic (you know, the ones that pat themselves on the back for buying over-priced pesticide-free terrycloth bathrobes from catalogs like Gaiam). I doubt that any of the oil producers are truly interested in any of these alternative oil sources, unless they plan on patenting them to get a piece of the pie.

    4. Re:I am more impressed... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      According to my sister-in-law (who works for a large oil company), Exxon is the only one that isn't looking into alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and biofuel. Exxon seems to take the strategy of waiting to see what works and then buying whoever figured it out.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    5. Re:I am more impressed... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Exxon and the like seem content to just pulling oil from the ground and putting it into pumps.

      **makes mental note to invest in Exxon**
    6. Re:I am more impressed... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Exxon seems to take the strategy of waiting to see what works and then buying whoever figured it out.

      Why does this seem vaguely familiar? Can anyone help me with this? Twitter? Erris?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:I am more impressed... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      They are the only major oil company to seem to "get" that oil won't last forever.

      Yeah, none of the others have checked the energy futures market. (?)

    8. Re:I am more impressed... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Belief in exclusivity is what drives business, and innovation. Giving something away just lowers the apparent value.

      --
      Deleted
    9. Re:I am more impressed... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the phone companies buying up the internet.

      1. Innovate
      2. Build and Market
      3. Sellout to the Oligopoly
      4. Party Like a Billionaire

    10. Re:I am more impressed... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      BP was going to start dumping a ton of stuff into Lake Michigan from their Indiana refinery. I haven't heard anything about it in a while.

      "BP could keep pollution discharges at its northwest Indiana oil refinery at current levels even after the plant's $3.8 billion expansion by spending $40 million on new technology, a report suggests."

      "n June, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management approved a new water permit that allows BP to increase ammonia discharges by 54 percent, to an average of 1,584 pounds a day, and suspended solid discharges by 35 percent, to 4,925 pounds a day.

      The amount of solids -- tiny particles that pass through water treatment filters -- is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines.

      When BP secured its new permit, federal and state regulators agreed there was not anything the company could do to reduce its discharges. Based largely on what BP told them, regulators concluded there is not enough room at the 1,400-acre refinery for the necessary equipment, according to public documents."

      I grew up on that lake and everytime I see one of their damn commercials it pisses me off. It's good marketing and not much else.

    11. Re:I am more impressed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has done this a lot (including Stac when Microsoft lost their lawsuit for stealing Stac's technology- they realized buying Stac was cheaper than the fine).

      Even more cleverly they offer to be a technology partner- leach away the technology legally and then write it themselves without having to buy their competitor at all.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:I am more impressed... by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I know someone whose superb credentials and decades of experience could get them a job at any of the oil companies, and he chooses to work for BP, because he believes that they are the most forward-thinking in terms of research and investments (even though said research might someday make his job obsolete) and have the best business practices in foreign countries (making sure that oil fields bring some jobs to the local economy, for instance, instead of importing workers and then armed guards to prevent a disaffected local populace from burning down the facility).

    13. Re:I am more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're forgetting where they came from, the former blood thirsty UK, after wars, deads, desiese and all the mess that they had suffered for a few hundred years (if not thosands) they, well, grew up, realized what's important in life, which is to live them and preserve them for the future generation, in my eyes, most of europe is going in that same direction, loosing millions of lifes in wars, they finally realized, life is about living things, not death.

      I just hope the rest of the world will wake up, the future is in our hands.

    14. Re:I am more impressed... by 4d4m · · Score: 1

      Now if only they maintained their oil pipelines like they are required to.

    15. Re:I am more impressed... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I don't think that Exxon ever did a cost/benefit study where the cost was workers killed and the benefit was maintenance expenses saved like BP did in Texas.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:I am more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and by "more impressed with", you mean "exposed to more advertising by"


    17. Re:I am more impressed... by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      They are still an "evil oil company" thus far as I can see
      A few years ago I thoguth I'd "vote with my wallet" and try to patronise the "least evil" oil companies. I quickly discovered that there is no such thing and switched to my convenience. Well, except Exxon, which seems to take evil to a whole new level...
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    18. Re:I am more impressed... by geekyMD · · Score: 1

      So I guess Kodak, Ford, Intel, etc. even in their humble beginnings were Evil simply because they didn't share their basic research? Wrong.

      Repeat after me:
      Corporations != Academia
      Corporations != Academia

      Corporations, who put their own $$$ on the line to inovate must realize a profit to recoup research costs at the bare minimum.

      When You put down the green to finance farming millions of acres you can do whatever you want with the research. Heaven help you if you took out a loan for that money and then give away your research.

    19. Re:I am more impressed... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      I agree with you, but Ford, Kodak, Intel et al didn't put out a bunch of feelgood commercials about how they were helping the planet, either...

      I guess the point is, it's cool that they're doing it and all, but let's not get all warm and fuzzy about their motives for doing so.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    20. Re:I am more impressed... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if BP is one of the first companies to set up production plants growing oil-laden algae on a massive scale, with the oil turned into a whole range of fuels and lubricants and the solid waste from the processing turned into ethanol, animal feed and/or plant fertilizer.

    21. Re:I am more impressed... by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      If the Bush administration thought oil would last forever we wouldn't have troops in Iraq. He's keenly aware of peak oil and has made moves to counter it, for Americans.

  7. Problem in the math by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative

    From your article: Grown for oilseed, Canadian grower's yields average 1 tonne/hectare, or about 400 lbs. per acre. Cannabis seed contains about 28% oil (112 lbs.), or about 15 gallons per acre.

    To meet the gasoline consumption needs of the USA would require about 9 billion acres at the above rate. This is about 4 times the size of the USA, including Alaska, and thus is probably not a workable plan.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Problem in the math by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      To meet the gasoline consumption needs of the USA would require about 9 billion acres at the above rate

      Except it's not petrol, it's diesel. If you were running nice fuel-efficient modern diesels, you'd be using about 1/6th the fuel of the wheezy gutless petrols you have now.

    2. Re:Problem in the math by h2_plus_O · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but it's much better than anything we're doing right now in the realm of biofuel generation.

      I think the point here is not that any one strategy will solve everything- as you note, it won't. That's no reason to shoot down something better than what we've got.

      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    3. Re:Problem in the math by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Funny

      Except it's not petrol, it's diesel. If you were running nice fuel-efficient modern diesels, you'd be using about 1/6th the fuel of the wheezy gutless petrols you have now.

      Dude! Where can I get these diesel engines with 6 times the fuel economy of my gasoline car? (By the way, my car gets about 36 mpg - gasoline - on the highway...)


      ...Seriously...

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    4. Re:Problem in the math by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Uh...you have diesels that get 180 MPG in the city, yet can power a medium weight 4WD SUV, like mine? Wow. That's really impressive. (And, yes, my SUV gets 30 MPG. I drive a Hybrid Escape.)

    5. Re:Problem in the math by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think the point here is not that any one strategy will solve everything- as you note, it won't. That's no reason to shoot down something better than what we've got.

      That's the problem - it's not better than what we have. It's a potential enviromental disaster that will take very little encouragement to shift from potential to real. (Or in other words, sometimes doing something just to be doing something is markedly worse than doing nothing.)
       
      On top of which 'what we have' includes corn ethanol, other biodiesels (for example potentially from both corn and soy), etc... etc... and you provide no numbers to show that jatropha is better.
    6. Re:Problem in the math by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Dude! Where can I get these diesel engines with 6 times the fuel economy of my gasoline car? (By the way, my car gets about 36 mpg - gasoline - on the highway...)

      He was exaggerating in one direction and you are intentionally mis-interpreting it in the other direction. A six-fold decrease in gallons of fuel consumed overall if the average American car was replaced with an "efficient diesel" (that would be used for similar tasks in Europe or Asia - so an SUV becomes a VW Golf Diesel) is actually pretty reasonable.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    7. Re:Problem in the math by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe that weed is much better than whatever you're doing, but oil palms produce 500 gallons per acre. And at least you can choose whether you want to eat the oil or burn it (or eat it then burn it after).

      The weed's probably ok for places where you can't grow other stuff.

      The algae stuff sounds promising - some figures say a _magnitude_ better than oil palm.

      --
  8. Presidential Executive Memo To Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Not in my U.S.A. Remember, you have no rights.

    PatRIOTically,
    George W. Bush

  9. Nut pressing by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Funny

    "nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts"

    Anybody else cross their legs and cringe when reading this?

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:Nut pressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Anybody else cross their legs and cringe when reading this?

      no just you... perv

    2. Re:Nut pressing by mh1997 · · Score: 1

      Anybody else cross their legs and cringe when reading this?
      No cringing here. Cool, I didn't read the article and yet still found a way to post.
    3. Re:Nut pressing by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Cool, I didn't read the article and yet still found a way to post. You must be new here. Reading TFA has never been a requirement for posting.

      Layne
    4. Re:Nut pressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and I got a little excited when I misread vegoil as vagoil.

    5. Re:Nut pressing by Snydley+Whiplash · · Score: 1

      I'm still feeling a little /. induced nut ache. Glad I'm not the only one.

  10. Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jatropha is a poisonous weed, yet it cures constipation? In the same way hemlock would cure constipation?

    1. Re:Contradiction? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last words of Socrates: "I drank what?"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Contradiction? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      In the same way deadly nightshade (belladonna) is used to cure nerve gas poisoning.

    3. Re:Contradiction? by Jorgandar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes it's a cure. You cant feel constipated when you're dead.

    4. Re:Contradiction? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      In the same way too much causes you to die of the screaming shits like dysentery.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Contradiction? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Often, poisons are helpful in small doses. Then they are called medicines. Like Digitalis, which you really should avoid chewing on in general, but is useful for some heart conditions. In small doses.

      Alcohol is also a poison to the body, but we still drink it...

  11. If only... by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

    If only they could find a way to make fuel out of kudzu. Anyone driving through the south could just pull over and refuel.

    1. Re:If only... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Anyone driving through the south could just pull over and refuel.

      You can if your car is a horse.

    2. Re:If only... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Kudzu was the answer to Deep South ground cover the way rabbits were the answer to Australian meat farming. As to bio fuel, Brazil has been running a gasohol program for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil Amazing what you can do when you are motivated..

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:If only... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Nah, we're too busy using kudzu root extract to make it seem like you've had three beers when you've only had one.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:If only... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Burn it. External Combustion Engine to power a generator.

      --
      Deleted
    5. Re:If only... by QMO · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking Mr. Fusion.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    6. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wood gasification. Here's an example

      http://members.tripod.com/~highforest/woodgas/woodfired.html

      Ruins your top end pretty fast though, you need an engine designed for it so that you can pull the head and scrape the ash every once and awhile. And you'll have to get used to driving max 60km/h instead of 120km/h. Oh well, such is the post-oil world of transportation.

  12. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts."

    I suppose that would be the case with most things.

  13. it'll make you laugh and cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    the article I mean

    Jatropha requires no pesticides, little water other than rain and no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts.


    That part made me laugh, cry and cringe
    1. Re:it'll make you laugh and cry by RailRide · · Score: 1

      ...after oil is pressed from its nuts.

      That part made me laugh, cry and cringe

      This one made me cringe harder

      ---PCJ

  14. Damn.... by 8127972 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ..... When I saw the title, I thought the poster was talking about a really good grade of pot.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  15. It'll never happen in the U.S ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too many billions in subsidies going into the maw of ethanol production.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by goldspider · · Score: 1, Troll

      Environmentalists have been shrieking and crying about government funding for alternative fuels, and now that we've rushed to pacify them, we discover it's not such a great investment afterall.

      Well that's what tends to happen when energy policy is influenced by knee-jerk alarmists.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Environmentalists have been shrieking and crying about government funding for alternative fuels, and now that we've rushed to pacify them, we discover it's not such a great investment afterall.

      Well that's what tends to happen when energy policy is influenced by knee-jerk alarmists. No, this is what happens when you let big business co-opt a public desire for change and turn it into another money-making scam. People want real alternative fuels, not smoke and mirrors like ethanol. But oh, doing that would actually cost money and eat into profits. Can't have that.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Please define a "real alternative fuel". If it's a good idea, I'm sure there's a big (evil) business that would be happy to exploit it for profit. That's your real beef with ethanol, isn't it?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should just be making biofuel and lose money at it, eh?

      Of course, without subsidies there's no ethanol market, so take your pick!

    5. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, the real beef is that ethanol production results in a net loss of power production vs. just burning the petroleum directly, is nowhere near as environmentally friendly as we've been told, and diverts billions of dollars of public funds into a pork fest of Biblical proportions. So, yes, while it takes "big evil business" to provide power on any significant scale, I simply resent the massive misdirection of tax dollars into privately-held foreign-owned corporations while providing U.S. citizens no benefit whatsoever.

      The problem is that ethanol is not a "good idea" and never will be a good idea. It's just another rationalization for more pork, another example of U.S. foreign aid to corporations that certainly don't need it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oddly enough that's the same exact banter we heard about the oil industry when ethanol started to take off.

      "we'll never seen an alternative fuel! the government has too much interest in the oil industry to let it happen! the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

    7. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should just be making biofuel and lose money at it, eh?

      Of course, without subsidies there's no ethanol market, so take your pick! No, you're missing the point. Big business wants profit on the quick, by next quarter latest. Anything that requires research and investment is anathema to them. We're hearing good things about algae-based bio-diesel. We know that hemp is a decent source. But they're going with corn because it's quick and easy, even though it really is a suboptimal solution. But ethanol sounds green and they can market it as such.

      That is what people are objecting to. Nobody is saying that private business has to be run as a charity. What people object to are businesses that are granted charters in the public interest that are then operated in such a manner as to work against the public interest. That's a huge distinction.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Please define a "real alternative fuel". I'd suggest biodiesel, which has a much better energy ROI than ethanol.
    9. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Please define a "real alternative fuel". If it's a good idea, I'm sure there's a big (evil) business that would be happy to exploit it for profit. That's your real beef with ethanol, isn't it? Ok, let me give you an example. I'm actually for nuclear power. I think that it's the lesser of all evils, seeing as we're not likely to get power sats working any time soon. I believe that modern, well-regulated reactors will be as safe and secure as any other alternative and with less of an environmental impact to boot. However, I'm distrustful of private companies running the reactors. They're not interested in a reasonable profit operating as a public utility, they want to cut operations to the bone and maximize profit at the expense of the public good. Just look at Vermont Yankee. The cooling tower collapsed. The motherfucking cooling tower collapsed. And this is after it passed inspection!

      Now I'm moving beyond fact into pure speculation but I would not be surprised if we found out that the inspectors flagged problems with the reactor but they were overruled by their superiors so that the reactor could be certified, superiors who are asshole buddies with the plant owners. That's just the way things are done. And that's also the reason why people will keep on dying until we make this punishment for this sort of corruption hurt like hell.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    10. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, this is what happens when you let big business co-opt a public desire for change and turn it into another money-making scam. People want real alternative fuels, not smoke and mirrors like ethanol.

      Which is exactly the grandparents point. Ethanol was touted as 'the' wonder fuel of the future - and many greens spent a lot of time pushing for it to be subsidized and widely adopted. Ethanol was only moved to the 'smoke and mirrors' category when it was discovered (by the greens) that big industry was better a producing it and reaping the benefits that little local farms whom the greens had imagined they were trying to help. Well, duh. If something is demanded in industrial quantities - big industry is always going to win out over the little guy. Simple economics.
    11. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the grandparents point. Ethanol was touted as 'the' wonder fuel of the future - and many greens spent a lot of time pushing for it to be subsidized and widely adopted. Ethanol was only moved to the 'smoke and mirrors' category when it was discovered (by the greens) that big industry was better a producing it and reaping the benefits that little local farms whom the greens had imagined they were trying to help. Well, duh. If something is demanded in industrial quantities - big industry is always going to win out over the little guy. Simple economics. No, the problem with ethanol is that it is net negative energy-wise when factoring in the cost of production. It doesn't do anything to help the energy crunch at all, it just shuffles the debt into different accounts. That's the problem with it. It also is directly using a food crop and is thus driving up the cost of eats for everyone. Trying to portray this as greens vs. the capitalists is just silly.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    12. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that ethanol is not a "good idea" and never will be a good idea. It's just another rationalization for more pork, another example of U.S. foreign aid to corporations that certainly don't need it.

      This article was an example of ethanol fuel that is not a net loss. It is a weed, growing in conditions other crops will not grow, without pesticides, fertilizer or irrigation.

      You are thinking about corn syrup ethanol.

    13. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You are thinking about corn syrup ethanol.

      Yes, I was, and that's because the goal of the current Administration seems to be to tie the price of fuel to the availability of a major food product. Personally, I think that's a bad idea, but given the investment in corn-based ethanol I'd say that switching to an inedible weed (however more effective it would be than corn) won't happen.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Trying to portray this as greens vs. the capitalists is just silly.

      Since when are facts silly? Yes, ethanol actually sucks as an alternative fuel. No, the greens didn't discover this until after they got they got their wish and Big Business got involved. Period.
       
      So either the greens are monumentally stupid, monumentally deceitful, or - they have an agenda other than the one they publically promote.
    15. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 1

      The article's weed is primarily an oil source, not an ethanol source. They are two different types of bio fuels.

      Though most ethanols - including corn - aren't a net loss either. That idea was from a 1970s study that has been completely eclipsed by efficiency improvements but keeps getting spread around to serve one person or another's agenda. However, corn is a remarkably inefficient ethanol source in comparison to others and oil-based sources tend to do even better than ethanol sources.

    16. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Actually, Ethanol makes a fine (green) fuel. It's only the decision to based it on corn that sucks. There are a huge number of higher yield plants available.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:It'll never happen in the U.S ... by ccp · · Score: 1

      No, this is what happens when you let big business co-opt a public desire for change and turn it into another money-making scam.

      Oh boy, you have a gift for compactness.
      Every word carries payload. Nice.

      Virtual hat off to you,

      CC
  16. All of North America under this weed? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Hmm, some quick calculations showed that if we plant all of North America with this weed exclusively, then we will get almost enough oil to sustain the current consumption. Maybe if we add all of Europe too... Quick, bring the bulldozers so we can start plowing up all these pesky cities and farms that are cluttering up the place!

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:All of North America under this weed? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Well, you could also switch from a form of transport which is 12% efficient to something better.

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:All of North America under this weed? by M1m3R · · Score: 1

      oh how i love the all or nothing mentality. even if we were to offset the current consumption by say... 12%, it would help.

      lets get crazy...maybe some bio-fuel from jatropha...some electricity from pv...some geothermal heat exchange for "conditioning" indoor environments. little bits help.

      --
      m1m3r - n. - a leet speak performance artist that sometimes gets trapped in an imaginary glass box
    3. Re:All of North America under this weed? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      How did parent and parent-sibling (uncle post?) manage to pull the same percentage out of thier butts in unrelated posts? Anyway...

      The point is that this source of fuel would be non-sustaining in that it takes more acreage of planted material to support the same acreage of fuel consumption. You would have to have this _plus_ something to come out even. Of course, the fallacy with this logic is that there are currently thousands upon thousands of unused square miles in the US. Then again, planting an agressive, invasive, non-native plant in a large area is bound to cause some problems.

      As for the all-or-nothing approach, the need to refuel so frequently is a serious problem for internal combustion powered vehicles. They only run at leak efficiency when tuned to a specific hyddrocarbon and drop off in efficiency (or are essentially unusable) using other fuels. The need for a "new" standard "gasoline" is necessary, but it has to be one which can be optimized. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing fuel away in our quest to free ourselves from fossil fules. Universal availability is still a complaint (in the US) by many auto drivers who shun diesel engines, even though the availability is nearly universal. We actually need to find another high-density production avenue. While several which result in the same end-product is a great goal, I'm skeptical that such a solution will yield more than 2-3 comeptitors which can compete economically without subsidies.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:All of North America under this weed? by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1
      Here's some of the math as I see it. Hopefully my math is correct.

      America has 9.6 million square kilometers of land. That converts to 960,000,000 hecatres. Jatropha produces 1,892 liters per hecatre. That means it would produce a theoretical 1,816,320,000,000 litres of fuel. 1.8 trillion litres of fuel. That's a little over 3x our current consumption rate, not about equal. Still not great though. I don't see biofuel being more than a niche supplier.

  17. That new car smell by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    The new weed burning cars will be available is many, many, many different colors.

    So many colors...

    Wait... what?

    1. Re:That new car smell by Ocho · · Score: 1

      The Jatropha seeds taste like Jatropha seeds.

  18. Are we so much different? by wamerocity · · Score: 0

    I think I have a lot in common with that plant. I too give off nutrient-rich seed left after oil is pressed from my nuts.

    --
    "Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
    1. Re:Are we so much different? by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      (Wagging head) Testosterone poisoning...

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  19. Yeah but... by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Can you smoke it?

    --
    When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    1. Re:Yeah but... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Of course you can, it's a plant with leaves. Whether or not you'd survive the experience, or get high, I leave to the botanists in the crowd.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Yeah but... by ROMRIX · · Score: 1

      Can you smoke it?

      No, but it might wish to be burned anyway after the oil is pressed from its nuts.
  20. Not cost effective by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to the article, the price of fuel derived from this will be in excess of $1/liter, or about $4/gallon. That's more that diesel is now. Something will have to change for this to be profitable.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Not cost effective by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, cos the price of Diesel will only go down in the future.

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Not cost effective by M1m3R · · Score: 1

      my thoughts exactly. and let's not forget that a move toward less dependence on oil...black gold...saudi tea...would probably be a good thing.

      OT: low sids unite.

      --
      m1m3r - n. - a leet speak performance artist that sometimes gets trapped in an imaginary glass box
    3. Re:Not cost effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1 per liter? Woohoo cheap fuel! If you're in the UK that is.

      Even at double that it wouldn't be that bad.

    4. Re:Not cost effective by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are, some places in Africa, South America, Asia, and Australia don't enjoy the same economies of scale we're used to; when generator fuel is hauled in in 20L cans on the backs of camels $4/gallon is a bargain.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Not cost effective by Scannerman · · Score: 1

      Pretty much anywhere in the world except the USA $4/gallon would be a bargain.

      we're paying around £1/litre in the UK now, which works out pretty close to $8/gallon

    6. Re:Not cost effective by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      $1/liter is the approximate retail price where I live. If that is the cost to produce it, then it won't take much of a change for it to become financially viable. There are other benefits to a solution like this. Due to it being more environmentally friendly (renewable resource) I assume there would be less taxes applied (some form of exemption) and since it can be grown nearly anywhere, it can be grown near where it will be used, so less cost in shipping (no big tankers from the middle east).

      There are people thought the oil sands in Alberta would never be profitable...

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    7. Re:Not cost effective by budgenator · · Score: 1

      most of the difference for you is taxes, without the taxes the prices are pretty much the same.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Not cost effective by Scannerman · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, so this would not require actual subsidy, even a reduced tax level would make it economically pretty viable for us.

      And I'm sure that low gas taxes in America won't last forever. It hurts at first, but its the only way to change behavior. Right now the incentive to drive an economical vehicle in the USA is minimal unless you have a 100 mile commute. Petrol driven cars are increasingly obsolete in Europe - CO2 based taxation has meant that, for company car drivers at least, its pretty much all diesel. so while prices are higher here, we probably pay about the same per mile.

      In world pricing models, This is viable now.

    9. Re:Not cost effective by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Most of the cost is tax. Want to bet they won't tax it too?

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  21. What the article fails to mention... by Jonboy+X · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Jatropha, an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation..." What the article fails to mention is the the "refinement" of this fuel source includes feeding it to the poor farmers, attaching a collection bag and waiting 12-24 hours to harvest the resultant natural gas.
    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
  22. Incineration by Silentknyght · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm at a loss as to why incineration isn't being touted as the next wave of energy production. I suppose the common man doesn't understand that the fuel stock doesn't greatly matter or differ when it comes out of the stack, provided the usual pollution control devices.


    You're going to have nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and depending on the fuel & control devices used, varying levels of particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). You're going to get this whether you burn the horribly-connoted "coal" or the relatively-benignly-connoted "wood". Plant matter, like that specified in TFA, isn't all that different from "wood", and actually used to be lumped together in the "biomass" definition until the US Supreme Court vacated the appropriate legislation set forth by the EPA.


    Point being... all of this is the generation of additional waste stream for fuel, instead of utilizing an existing waste stream for fuel. I applaud the thought and intent, but why not use the garbage we already generate for fuel? RDF (refuse-derived fuel) boilers already exist for electrical generation...

    1. Re:Incineration by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Mainly because the external combustion engine fell out of favour for trains and was barely introduced for cars. I'd be interested in seeing someone stoking a plane, though.

    2. Re:Incineration by Politburo · · Score: 2, Informative

      One thing is that until recently, installing all of the devices to control NOx, SOx, PM, and heavy metals such as mercury was cost prohibitive than using a more refined fuel. Fuel for vehicles needs to have a consistent energy density and be generally clean so that it does not foul the mechanisms or poison the catalyst. You can't do that with RDF, which is why it's used for cogeneration. Plus there is all sorts of monitoring you must do to ensure you're not burning something that got in the waste stream by accident.

    3. Re:Incineration by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I'm at a loss as to why incineration isn't being touted as the next wave of energy production.

      DARPA is working on that.

    4. Re:Incineration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in seeing someone stoking a plane, though.

      I'd be all over that if I got a discounted fare.
    5. Re:Incineration by Mr.+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Because RDF is best suited to fixed location use. It is generally low density, labor intensive and as sibling post mentions requires a good bit of monitoring.

      Don't forget that you gain more by cleaning up electric generation than by cleaning up transit though, and RDF helps out with the landfill issue too.

      Energy is not one-solution-for-all by any means.

      With clean power, hydrogen could be an answer too. There are a lot of dollars backing H2 but ignoring the power for conversion issue.... It's a lot like ethonol in that way: cleaner tailpipe emissions but it's really just shifting them back to the fuel creation side of things. But of course we have plenty of spare electric generationg capacity now so H2 cracking is really no issue, right? sigh....

      --
      - MM
  23. Well, that's why their tagline is... by BUL2294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..."beyond petroleum". But then again, this is the same BP that just lost HUGE in the court of public opinion when everyone in Chicago started complaining about the fact that they wanted to dump more pollutants into Lake Michigan. Hell, even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam called attention to it at Lollapalooza.

    Frankly, I'm not impressed with BP. This big bad oil company is doing nothing more than chasing the $$$. You'd better believe that if oil prices dropped, they wouldn't hesitate to cancel these programs... Being environmentally conscious is money-making--for the time-being...

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    1. Re:Well, that's why their tagline is... by QMO · · Score: 2

      even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam called attention to it
      And if that's not enough to convince you, you just don't have critical thinking skills.
      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    2. Re:Well, that's why their tagline is... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Being a business is about chasing the money. Business doesn't run on hopes and dreams (although those can help depending on the industry you're in).

  24. And if BP changes it's mind? by mnemotronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If BP changes it's corporate directive, or the Jatropha plant isn't the great biomass solution it's touted to be, then we have millions of acres planted with "ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed" which is "resilient to pests and resistant to drought". Oh, great. While we're at it, let's introduce rabbits like they did into Australia, and kudzu like in the Southern US. Don't get me started on Zebra mussles or sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. Ok, so there's not much in the way of swampland in central Africa, but the point is that Really Bad Things happen wherever mankind does something that drastically alters the native environment. I wonder if global warming and increased CO2 will help the plant grow faster and more obnoxious?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  25. Seeds? What about the whole plant? by jlcooke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Allow me to be crack-pot.

    This is old news, like 20 years old. Mainstream old, it's more like 5 years. Still old.

    Real biofuel folk know that Algae is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    J-plant's seeds are 40% oil. Some breeds of Algae are 50% oil by TOTAL PLANT MASS.

    Not to mention it's the fastest growing plant - faster than bamboo.

    Not to mention it's the easiest thing to grow (water, dirt, shit, sunlight). Just think about how much work people go through to keep it out of a chlorinated pool. What would happen if actually tried to grow it?

    Not to mention you don't need arable land to grow algae - desert works exceptionally well. Beside a nuclear (pr. new-clear) power plant will let you use waste heat to keep the green stuff growing all winter as well.

    Industrial algae production, 100's of hectares of 1m deep concrete pools and greenhouses. Constantly skimming fractions of the population allowing re-growth. We're talking constant production, no expensive equipment to harvest.

    The man doesn't want you to know.

  26. Great by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    ...the New York Times reports that jatropha may replace biofuels like ethanol that require large amounts of water, fertilizer, and energy, making their environmental benefits limited.

    Great. Does it also require so few farmers and so little arable land that it has no effect on the production of food crop? Or will it push up the prices of food significantly in poor countries, as other biofuel crops have done?

    1. Re:Great by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      From TFA;

      "Jatropha oil is vegetable oil produced from the seeds of the Jatropha curcas, a plant that can grow in wastelands. Jatropha curcas grows almost anywhere, even on gravelly, sandy and saline soils. It can thrive on the poorest stony soil and grow in the crevices of rocks."

      (From Wikipedia article on Jatropha oil)
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that most poor countries are more likely to export food rather than import food, poor countries benefit from higher food prices.

      Of course, its more intellectually simpler to rant "The rich world subsidizes its farmers, driving down the price of food, hurting farmers in poor countries", and then turn around and rant "The rich world subsidizes biofuels, driving up the price of food, hurting people in poor countries", isn't it?

  27. Now both you and your car can smoke week together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will we see more erratic driving? It was the cars fault officer.... honest.

  28. Exxon Mobil by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 0

    I bet Exxon Mobil will try to buy this out..

  29. Re:If only bindweed had a use... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Out west we have bindweed. It seems to grow best where I don't water. It's invasive and omnipresent, but at least it isn't poisonous, doesn't have thorns, and doesn't stink. On the other hand, it serves no useful purpose, gets in the way and ties up the other plants .... on the whole, kinda like Condoleeza Rice.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  30. Poisonous? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

    IANAB (I am not a botanist), but I know that you can get quite sick burning things like poison ivy, poison oak, and so on -- you can inhale the irritants and basically end up with poison ivy in your windpipe and lungs. So I'd be curious as to exactly HOW this stuff is poisonous -- if its natural oils are irritants like the ones I mention above, I wonder what you'd have to do to extract all that poison before putting it in a combustion engine and, well, combusting it.

    Or if the constipation cure would be the worst result of the exhaust, you'd have a whole lot of motorists driving very dangerously in a hurry to get home ...

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Poisonous? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Basically you take the oil react it with methanol/sulphuric acid solution to separate the fatty acids from the glycerin, then take the FA and react them with sodium methoxide so any irritants or alergens are pretty much denatured.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Poisonous? by the+Jim+Bloke · · Score: 1

      Thats easy, they just get the poor african ex-farmers to do it, after taking away all their drought ridden land that wouldn't support food crops anyway. Clean energy is only "clean" at its point of use. The trick is to keep the polluting bits out of the public eye.

      --
      Big Brother watching us has got to be better than us having to watch Big Brother
  31. Car rolling a fatty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anybody else get the image of a car lighting up a big ol' fatty when they read about cars fueled by "wonder weed"? :)

  32. Instead of poppies... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Afghans could grow this... of course, this wouldn't make the West energy-independent.

  33. Some numbers for comparison. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lex Worrall, chief executive of Helius Energy, claims Jatropha can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil per hectare. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2155351.ece

    For comparison, corn produces about 0.15 tonnes per hectare, hemp about 0.30 tonnes, and canola (rapeseed) only 1.0 tonnes.
    So if he's right, it's a very good oil producer, on the order of much harder to grow oil producers like avocado (2.2) or coconut (2.3).

    Still 1/5 of algae though.

    -- Should you believe authority without question?

    1. Re:Some numbers for comparison. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      For comparison, corn produces about 0.15 tonnes per hectare, hemp about 0.30 tonnes, and canola (rapeseed) only 1.0 tonnes. So if he's right, it's a very good oil producer, on the order of much harder to grow oil producers like avocado (2.2) or coconut (2.3).

      It's not the raw amount of oil per hectare that matters, it's total extractable work (energy recoverable minus energy to produce) that matters.
       
       

      Should you believe authority without question?

      If you are simply going to repeat numbers without attempting to understand them - you might as well.
    2. Re:Some numbers for comparison. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      It's not the raw amount of oil per hectare that matters, it's total extractable work (energy recoverable minus energy to produce) that matters.


      I tend to agree. Do you have any numbers for how it compares to hemp or rapeseed in that regard?

      -- Should you believe authority without question?
  34. ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    animal feed, paper, you can make wine from the flowers and so far there is some good research on making a medicine from it that could possibly be used as a near cure for alcoholism and perhaps some other addictions. That comes from noticing from oriental medicine it was used for that, so some scientists looked into it and found some active ingredient in it that does seem to work, but I don't know if it is on the market yet or not. I do know the huge roots can be sold if they are clean and pure to oriental doctors sometimes. And seeing as how it is cellulose rich and grows like crazy, once we have good enough engineered yeasts to make cheap cellulosic ethanol, it could be used for that as well.

    The energy solution silver bullet is "all of the above", there isn't one single tech that will do it all, but the combination of what we have now can be made to work, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, other hydropower, biofuels, etc. If we work just as hard at reducing demand by building more efficient devices and buildings and vehicles, then keep adding to the production mix from diverse sources, we can do it, we can finally break the back of the traditional dirty energy monopolies, and have cleaner, cheaper and more decentralized power. this jatropha is just another arrow in our energy quiver really, all are welcome. I appreciate that poorer folks all over the planet can now maybe have a chance at some sort of income, modest as it might be, instead of dumping cash by the truckload to already rich as snot radical oil-rich muslims or radical western capitalist pigs like exxon, etc. Those people take the cash and do "bad stuff" with it. Every buck they DON'T get and some poor farmers and new alternate energy companies get is a buck much better spent than going to the traditional military/industrial complex/war mongers.

  35. Infinite miles to the ounce with *that* fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, man, the car doesn't move.

    1. Re:Infinite miles to the ounce with *that* fuel by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      I think we're parked, man...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  36. NZ by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Informative

    The man missed New Zealand then: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00030.htm

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:NZ by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Eveyone knows New Zeland is totally crazy, thus the man ignores him. Now this is only 1/2 a good idea. o make this REALLY kick ass combine it with Changing World Technologies TDP. Now we're talking.

  37. Ob by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 1, Funny

    an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation
    What a pity it wasn't posted by Roland Piquepaille.
    --
    If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
  38. Has anyone considered Kudzu for this? by jivosnicanpisados · · Score: 1

    I thought this plant may be a relative of that Deep South vine that is rumored to grow a meter a day: Kudzu

    1. Re:Has anyone considered Kudzu for this? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Kudzu doesn't have nice oily seeds that can be trivially pressed for oil.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  39. New Wonder: Weed to Fuel Cars! by damburger · · Score: 1

    Punctuation can make stories so much more fun.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  40. Goat is del-licious, mon. by crovira · · Score: 1

    Seeriously, mon.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm a big fan of goat cheese, and I've had goat before and found it tasty. That's me though. I served a pork tenderloin to my in-laws (they're my middle-america touchstone...if I want to find out what people who love Wal-Mart like, I ask them) last week, and they looked at me like I was fricking crazy...Pork for them was sausage, barbeque, or bacon, or maybe a chop. Jesus, if you can't even get people here to eat the whole pig, then pushing goat (or lamb for that matter) is a lost cause.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by MonorailCat · · Score: 1

      madness. pork tenderloin is AMAZING. But then again I'll eat most flesh. I tend to draw the line at "obvious land mammal organ tissue" Any other meat or seafood is probably fair game.

    3. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Man, the last time I had goat was at an Indian buffet somewhere in the Kansas City area. If I had that recipe, I would decimate the local goat population. MMMMMMMMM!

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    4. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My thoughts exactly. The only place I have typically seen goat is at Indian restaurants. As long as it's not too filled with bones and difficult to disassemble (sometimes a problem even at good buffets), it is terrific.

    5. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by deek · · Score: 1

      Pork for them was sausage, barbeque, or bacon, or maybe a chop. Jesus, if you can't even get people here to eat the whole pig, then pushing goat (or lamb for that matter) is a lost cause.


      I thought that sausage contained the whole pig. Even the hoofs. :)

      Sausage may work for goat as well. Just slap some herbs in with it, call it gourmet, and it'd probably be a hit. It's all in the marketing.
    6. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      if you can't even get people here to eat the whole pig, then pushing goat (or lamb for that matter) is a lost cause.

      Just tell them it's racoon.
    7. Re:Goat is del-licious, mon. by ccp · · Score: 1

      Jesus, if you can't even get people here to eat the whole pig, then pushing goat (or lamb for that matter) is a lost cause.

      My friend, I'm posting from Argentina, the Holy Land of steaks, so I guess I can make a valid comparation on meat.
      We eat barbequed goat from time to time, as a treat (because here lamb and goat are more expensive than cow), and let me assure you that it's delicious. You just have to cook it very slowly.

      Cheers,
      CC
  41. Hemp isn't that useful by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how the hemp promoters are uninterested in other coarse-fiber crops, like jute, sisal, kenaf, and manila. Or in other low-cost sources of cellulose, like straw, bagasse (sugar cane after sugar extraction), and similar agricultural waste. No, somehow they're attracted only to hemp.

    1. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Darth+Liberus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's like the "medical" marijuana brigade. Stop trying to convince us that hemp/marijuana is the Miracle of Miracles and start telling the truth: you like to get high and the Gummint is wasting my tax money.

      --
      Beauty is just a light switch away.
    2. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the hemp promoters are uninterested in other coarse-fiber crops, like jute...

      It's no fun being referred to as a Jute Bastard. That's why.

    3. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to point out the obvious, but it is entirely possible that hemp is the best of those materials for certain purposes. I have heard people claim that it makes the strongest ropes of all available natural fibers. Don't know if that's true, but it sure would explain that "funny" interest which people have in the stuff.

      Alternately, a lot of people may be specifically interested in hemp because it was specifically banned by certain governments while sisal etc. were not. No nefariousness here, just people who are attracted to righting a perceived wrong.

    4. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Comen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok you got me, I want to smoke the stuff already! and it makes great rope also!
      I see no reason to grow hemp that does not get peopel high, waht a huge waste.

    5. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      I have a couple of old books on ropes and knots, that date from very early 20th C, before hemp was illegalized. They both have sections comparing the different materials for rope making, and they both state that hemp is the strongest and longest lasting, followed by sisal, and then manilla - these two being significantly inferior to hemp. I think jute is commonly used to make twine, I've never heard of it being used for anything bigger. Kenaf is in the same category as jute, AFAICT.

      Industrial hemp has no THC, so there is no possibility to get a high from it. I know a few people that were trying to get some hemp plantations going in Tasmania, for prototype paper production. They were interested in hemp because, of the various alternatives to wood pulp, help appears to be the best. Why should we let ignorant hypocrites (such as yourself, possibly?) ban a useful plant just because variants of it have intoxicating effects? If someone genetically engineered a variety of tomato to contain THC, would you then ban all tomatoes?

    6. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you want to hide your little high-htc hemp plants in the big industrial low-thc ones, ya hippie just do what the immigrant farm workers do, hide your little doobie-factories under legitimate food crops

    7. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Funny

      If someone genetically engineered a variety of tomato to contain THC, would you then ban all tomatoes?

      No, but I might start using a lot more ketchup.
      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    8. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone use hemp for serious rope making anymore? In search and rescue we weren't allowed to even have the stuff around - it is most certainly not appropriate for lifesaving applications. I had a rope swing made with hemp rope in my back yard as a kid, and it broke at least twice over the years. Never had that problem with synthetics.

    9. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Except that hiding high-THC variants of Cannabis Sativa among low-THC variants means that you lose your high-THC seeds. The low-THC variants would dominate the pollination and your high-THC genetic strain is toast in one generation. One of the best arguments for growing hemp everywhere is that it would decimate the economics of marijuana agriculture.

      Regards,
      Ross

    10. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Industrial hemp has no THC, so there is no possibility to get a high from it.

      not quite zero. i believe the standard for it to be considered industrial hemp rather than marijuana is below 0.05% THC.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    11. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think hemp is used for serious rope making anymore. It used to be used for climbing/rescue work before synthetics, but a big advantage of synthetic rope is that it takes a lot less effort to take care of it, as well as modern synthetics having much better strength characteristics. Your rope swing in the back yard probably rotted, as plant fibre tends to do ;) Paper is probably the biggest unrealized application for hemp.

    12. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      They both have sections comparing the different materials for rope making, and they both state that hemp is the strongest and longest lasting, followed by sisal, and then manilla - these two being significantly inferior to hemp

      That's, of course, complete nonsense. To use hemp ropes on ships, they had to coat it in tar across its entire surface just to keep it from rotting. Don't have to do that with manila rope. Ever heard the saying "Jack Tar" or "Tar" in relation to sailors? One of the likely origins is from the mess of having to deal with the tar-covered rigging lines when they got hot. A quick google search even revealed a place that still sells it.

      Apart from hemp's tendancy to rot, the two fibers are of similar tensile strength

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    13. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      To use hemp ropes on ships, they had to coat it in tar across its entire surface just to keep it from rotting. Don't have to do that with manila rope Hemp and manila traditionally served different roles on ship. Hemp was for the "standing rigging" that held the masts and yards together but was never manipulated. Tarring this rigging definitely helped preserve it-there are museum ships still using tarred hemp more than 50 years old--and the fact that the tar & service turned these ropes into inflexible, bar-like structures didn't matter. Manila was used for "running rigging" that had to be pulled or manipulated to steer the ship. This needed to be flexible and could not be tarred or served. Modern, traditional museum ships that don't sail but do use manila have to replace it at least every 5 years; a working ship "back in the day" would probably have replaced every manila rope once or twice a year.

    14. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Well, as an artist who also is into ropework, I can tell you that hemp is the best solution for both of my needs. It produces naturally acid-free paper that (could be) super-cheap, requires little processing and is friendly to the environment. It also produces the best quality rope for nearly every purpose except those that demand synthetic fibers.

      Unfortunately because of the cost, I wind up buying expensive acid-free paper and using mostly poly ropes.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    15. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Waste55 · · Score: 1

      While it should be obvious that marijuana is no miracle of miracles, many argue that THC use for medical purposes may be beneficial after all.

      The two ends of the spectrum: Legalize it simply because its pot, and keep it illegal simply because its pot.

    16. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Funny how the hemp promoters are uninterested in other coarse-fiber crops

      It's as if they have hemp in their very jeans. I'm sure some drug refererences will get roped in here too.

      Historically the reefer madness stirred up around hemp had a lot to do with the cotton industry, and the refusal of France and India to ban the stuff had a lot to do with the deterioration of relations between those countries and the USA. Ironically the prohibition almost worldwide has led to high THC indoor hydro weed becoming exactly what the overblown claims were and not the relatively tame weed of years past. Industrial hemp is a very different thing to what people are being busted with now.

    17. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Mostly because we want pot to be legalized.

      Keep your laws the fuck away from my private life.

    18. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Here, here!

      Not only that, but most of our current pain-relievers (especially the really big ones like Morphine) typically ruin appetite. One of the key items to focus on for cancer patients and many other terminally ill people is their weight. Kepp that weight on, keep that body healthy. Hard to do on lots of our drugs. Not so hard baked out on weed. Marijuana could extend/save/better a very large portion of our terminally ill patients that end up perpetually medicated on Demarol, Vicadin and more anyways.

      Oh, and I've never taken a hit of pot in my life, but I recognize something as beneficial when I see it.

    19. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Animats · · Score: 1

      To use hemp ropes on ships, they had to coat it in tar across its entire surface just to keep it from rotting.

      Yes. Not only that, hemp rope rots from the inside out, so the rope looks good until it breaks under load.

    20. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by gb506 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mostly because we want pot to be legalized. Keep your laws the fuck away from my private life.

      You and your buddies keep your pot smoking asses the fuck away from my kids and perhaps the laws wouldn't be required. Just a thought.

    21. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, prior to synthetics it was the best option for many applications. But I don't know of anyone wanting to revive hemp for the purpose of making rope from it, where did this argument come from? It smells like a strawman.

      By the way, even modern ropes used in rescues and rock climbing suffer from a similar problem. They are made of a relatively thin core, surrounded by a woven sheath. The problem is that dust and grit gets into the sheath, and then acts like sandpaper acting on the core. But you can't see this occurring because it is covered by the near-pristine sheath. If you want to avoid a sudden unexpected failure the only way is to be extremely paranoid and throw away a section of rope that is even the slightest bit manky. It is a major rule of rope handling that you never tread on a rope, especially if it is lying on dirt, for fear of getting grit embedded into the rope.

    22. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by glarbl_blarbl · · Score: 1

      One of the best arguments for growing hemp everywhere is that it would decimate the economics of marijuana agriculture. Yeah, because dammit, a drug on which no one has ever overdosed and which seems to actually prevent cancer should never be allowed for human consumption! Seriously, what is it with these hippies? Can't they just take their alcohol then crash their cars and beat their wives like normal people?!
      --
      I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
    23. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      Heh, I just reviewed the thread and, duh, it was me that first mentioned hemp rope ;-) But no one is claiming that hemp rope would be the driver of a hemp revival anyway, there are not that many applications where it would be used. So it is still a strawman I think.

      Oh, except for this guy, who seems to have quite legitimate uses for it, unless of course you don't like his art and are nazi enough to want to prevent him from doing it.

    24. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by runderwo · · Score: 1

      It could have something to do with the fact that Hemp grows in the natural climate almost anywhere and is naturally resistant to pests. Hell, we've been on an eradication campaign for the last 75 years and yet it's still growing wild all over states like Oklahoma... demonstrating that it's even resistant to determined pests like human prohibitionists.

    25. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's not so much a chemical miracle as it is an economic miracle.
      You can certainly replicate the medical properties of marijuana with
      a large chemical factory. You will also incur 100x the cost in the
      process.

                The real problem is "the man" doesn't want you the "consumer" to
      be self sufficient. Anything that encourages that undermines their
      power and their ability to lead the couch potato nation around by the
      nose (or distract them).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    26. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by toxicity69 · · Score: 1

      So, remind me again why getting high is bad? Its not like you can get drunk at work, so why would getting high be an issue - and IMHO stoned people are way easier to spot than drunk people...

    27. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The gummint is wasting magnitudes more of your tax money in other things, and it can't even afford decent electronic voting systems...

      Somehow it still got voted in twice (or was that "voted" in?).

      Makes me wonder who are the ones on drugs.

      --
    28. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      not to worry, there are horticultural techniques to ensure that the hippie weed stays pure in that scenario. of course, I also wonder if someone somewhere hasn't evolved a giant industrial doobie-weed, good for rope and good for dope.

    29. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can go out to a restaurant with your kids and it's ok for people at the next table to be enjoying a glass of wine? Shouldn't you be trying to hide that for your kids, too? Last time I checked, alcohol was addictive, unlike pot. At least pot-smokers primarily do it behind closed doors, not right in front of your kids. Or do you actually believe that all pot-smokers try to push their habit onto everyone else?

    30. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rhakka · · Score: 1

      Those other plants are not currently illegal for no good reason.

      Right? Or did I miss a memo?

      Is it possible that hemp advocates think it's ridiculous that we are not allowed to use a very useful crop for no reason? You can't get high from it. Why is it illegal?

    31. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Dude, do you really think me and my pot smoking buddies are trying to get your kid high?

      It's his FRIENDS who do that.

      Tell you what...make alcohol illegal and I'll call the hypocracy score even, ok?  It's the worst drug in the world, and it's legal.  Pot...nobody ever kills anybody while high on weed.

      Or are you ignorant enough to believe otherwise?

    32. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by globalhemp · · Score: 1

      Not all fibers are created equal. Hemp makes an AWESOME fiber for paper, as has many mechanical characteristics that make it an excellent natural fiber for composite applications. When Mercedes Benz decided to use hemp it their autos, it was not because hemp was a "groovy" material, rather because its superior to many other natural fibers and less expensive than fiberglass. Hemp is not mentioned in any marketing literature from Mercedes, nor BMW, Chrysler, Ford, etc however, all use use hemp-content composites in their autos.

      One of the greatest things about hemp is the fact that it can be used for so many different markets. This is why its attractive. Its not tied to one sole end-use, such as only rope, only paper, etc. It can be used for lots of items.

      Eric Pollitt
      Global Hemp, Inc
      http://www.globalhemp.com/ http://www.globalhempstore.com/

    33. Re:Hemp isn't that useful by gb506 · · Score: 1

      Pot...nobody ever kills anybody while high on weed.

      No shit, that's because you're all so listless and burnt out you have a hard time holding a cogent thought much less mustering enough energy and drive to off someone. Look, I work at an organic foods cooperative, I'm literally surrounded by pot heads all day long. I've never seen so many looney-toon, morose, mentally scattered people in one place in all my life. You can sit there and tout the use of pot all you like, but I see how it affects people long term, and it ain't pretty, buddy.

  42. Done and done. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    And worse, they become less self-sufficient and have to import all their food. Food aid programs already guarantee this in many parts of Africa. When you stop people from starving by importing food, you've created a 'customer' for life.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Done and done. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when you give them money, you pretty much destroy their ability to self-govern as well.

      If we would just back off for 10 years*, leave africa alone, a lot of people would die but afterwards they would have their act together.

      * including large multi-national quasi governmental corporations.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:Done and done. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      If we would just back off for 10 years*, leave africa alone, a lot of people would die

      The fact that you don't regard this last bit as a deal-killer really reveals a lot about your capacity for compassion.

    3. Re:Done and done. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Modquark,
      I agree. It is a difficult decision.

      You can doom millions of people for generations of torture, starvation, and genocide by helping them.

      Or you can allow a few million of them to die and then they learn to stand on their own feet, stop overbreeding, stop tolerating and supporting screwy belief systems
      * unprotected sex is good!
      * males should have sex with many female partners!
      * It is a good thing to treat women like property and slaves
      * you should have 8 babies even when there is no arable land left!
      * It is best to be evil and corrupt and take all the money and stuff for myself (or my tribe).

      Which is ultimately more compassionate?
      To me a lot of the "aid" we give does immense harm to the people it is supposedly helping.
      I believe letting it fall over as soon as possible is ultimately a lot more compassionate.
      I'm not talking about pushing it over... I'm just saying stop propping a clearly broken system up.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Done and done. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      And there's no scenario where you can help them restructure their infrastructure so they can stand on their own, while providing the bare necessities (and I mean _bare_) so they don't flat-out die?

      Granted, it doesn't help that those kinds of countries often have corrupt power-brokers (including some of those infamous companies you've mentioned) which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in their country, but in that situation part of "restructuring the infrastructure" would have to include prying control of the country loose from the grasp of those types of people.

      You are presenting a false choice of solutions. There ARE potential solutions which don't involve "giving up" on large population segments. The only thing missing is the will of the societies that have the resources to implement such solutions - which brings me back to my initial point about a lack of compassion.

    5. Re:Done and done. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I understand where you are coming from.

      I've seen a lifetime of trying that way fail.

      Supporting people with inappropriate values has always lead to more people with inappropriate values (and an even larger tragedy) in my life time.

      I have given and will give money to victims of random tragedies- you can't help those. An earthquake or tornado or plague can happen anywhere. I've built houses for the homeless through habitat.

      But flat out overbreeding, stripping the soil of all plant life, etc. I can't support.

      However, I respect your opinion and your right to allocate your money where you want to. I just think it probably makes things worse in the long run.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  43. oblig simpsons by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
    Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
    Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
    Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
    Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
    Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  44. There is a lot more than this one by protomala · · Score: 2, Informative

    Petrobras (brazilian oil company) is researching a *lot* of seeds and already does create diesel from them. There is a lwa that states that next year brazilian diesel will have to use a small percentage of bio-diesel, so this isn't a "what if", but a growing market reality in Brazil.
    You can get more info on Petrobras site:
    http://www2.petrobras.com.br/portal/frame.asp?pagina=/minisite/bioenergia/terra/index.asp&lang=pt&area=bioenergia (portuguese). There is even a list of used plants.

    A similar example here in south america is getting bio-diesel from Mamona (castor oil plant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil_plant), that is also poison if eaten and very strong to plagues and easy to grown.

    1. Re:There is a lot more than this one by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > There is a lwa that states that next year brazilian diesel will have to use a small percentage of bio-diesel,

      The European Union has set a goal:
        * For 2010 that each member state should achieve at least 5.75% biofuel usage of all used traffic fuel.
        * For 2020, 10 % .

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#European_Union

    2. Re:There is a lot more than this one by protomala · · Score: 1

      Brazil already adds 20%~25% of ethanol in gas, but now the target is diesel. Also, manofacturers are creating cars that run with both gas or ethanol.
      As far as I know, europe is using more and more diesel for cars, so it's a bit different market, because it's easier to mix things in gas.

  45. Fun stuff by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

    "its sap is a skin irritant, and ingesting three untreated seeds can kill a person."

    "Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals."

    "Jatropha needs at least 600mm (23in) of rain a year to thrive."

    "20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive"

    "farmers in India are already expressing frustration that after being encouraged to plant huge swaths of the bush they have found no buyers for the seeds."

    "needs two to three years to develop into a cash crop."

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Fun stuff by popejeremy · · Score: 1
      "its sap is a skin irritant, and ingesting three untreated seeds can kill a person." If you drink gasoline, you'll die too.

      "Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals."

      Huh. It's invasive and highly toxic to people and animals, kind of like the oil industry.

      "20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive"

      That's really a reasonable survival rate for plants.

      "needs two to three years to develop into a cash crop."

      How long does it take to build an oilfield and an oil refinery? I bet it takes a couple years too.

  46. Mekmitasdigoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mekmitasdigoat

    It's IETF approved!

  47. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Surt · · Score: 1

    Algae production requires a lot more water and shit than jatropha. They're complementary for different locations of the world.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  48. Signs point to nuclear fusion. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Basically, the problem is thus: we need to have some sort of a way to store energy in a car so that it can move. We've been cheating all along by using pre-stored energy in the form of fossil fuels.

    So, we either store the energy in the form of sunlight, using biofuels or some other weather derived process - like flowing ocean currents or wind, or we generate the energy from some non-solar, non-fossil source. That means nuclear power, charging up electric cars. Obviously, I would like to see fission but the enviro people are too large a constituency to ram it unilaterally down their throats. Plus, it would be nice to arrive at an energy solution the entire nation could live with.

    That means fusion....

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Signs point to nuclear fusion. by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      That means fusion.... Yeah, fusion.

      The new reactors are being shipped in on the ponies we're getting from Iraq, right?
    2. Re:Signs point to nuclear fusion. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      That means fusion....

      so let's figure out something that will sustain things until we get that to work. that means renewable hydrocarbons.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Signs point to nuclear fusion. by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, obviously. What did you think we were doing with all of the flowers that the Iraqis were throwing at us, if not feeding them to ponies?

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
  49. It's all in the dosage by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    Almost anything is poisonous in large enough doses, including oxygen and water. Likewise, (very) small quantities of mercury, arsenic, and/or uranium are probably in your drinking water (depending on where you live the chemical contamination will vary). Even Hemlock has been used as medicine to treat arthritis, but problems with accidental poisoning were too common.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  50. Sentence that really hurt by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Funny
    This one hurts on so many levels:

    Jatropha requires no pesticides, little water other than rain and no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts.
    1. No plants require pesticides.
    2. Very few land-based plants require water other than rain, plants being unable to distinguish the source of their H2O.
    3. As someone mentioned, most plants are able to live on soil and their own detritus.
    4. I cannot contemplate for long the prospect of all those poor plants having their nuts crushed. Ooh, I hate when that happens!
    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:Sentence that really hurt by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      *sigh* you require pesticides if you plan on having any kind of crop left at the end of the season.

      and before you start with the organic crap - I grow organic fruit and veg at home, but i'm not so navie as to think it is fesible on a large scale.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Sentence that really hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but i'm not so navie as to think it is fesible

      Come again?

  51. Coincidence. Info on efficiency by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a week or two back, in my alumni group a friend posted the following info about Jatropha:

    I heard about Jatropha before. While I don't have anything specific to
    say about Jatropha, there are some general comments I have about
    bio-based approaches.

    1. Plants can absorb light only in the range 400nm-700nm, capturing
    only 43% of the of the radiation.

    2. It has to collect CO2, and hence can use only 25% of the available
    energy.

    3. That brings down the theoretical efficiency of photosynthesis to
    11%. Figure in the absorption of light, and the plant has to spend
    some energy on itself, what it can give you comes down to 6.5% at best.

    I don't how Jatropha compares to algae, but you can can be sure that
    it is not going to exceed 6.5%. Put the fuel in an IC engine, you are
    probably talking 2% efficiency of photon-to-wheels at best.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Coincidence. Info on efficiency by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Okay. So?

      With a non biological solution you basically have to perform the same processes. You need to take sunlight and convert it into some sort of portable, high density energy source. That means either fuel or batteries. Batteries are pretty inefficient and we're REALLY bad at making fuel synthetically.

      The only place you could win with a technological solution would be absorbing more of the sun's spectrum. There are solar panels that are getting better at that, but they basically amount to layering panels of different construction -- which means they cost more (energy) to produce and replace.

      Biology has evolved to be pretty efficient. Our technology isn't so hot in comparison, when you consider everything.

    2. Re:Coincidence. Info on efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come plants don't absorb energy in the ultraviolet or infrared ranges?

  52. Patent infringement by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right? Citation needed. Patent infringement is a strict liability offense. If your neighbor buys land next to yours and plants patented seeds on it under a contract with Monsanto, and some seeds blow over to your property and grow, you may be liable for patent infringement. See Monsanto v. Schmeiser and foreign counterparts.
    1. Re:Patent infringement by mi · · Score: 1

      If your neighbor buys land next to yours and plants patented seeds on it under a contract with Monsanto, and some seeds blow over to your property and grow, you may be liable for patent infringement.

      That would not have happened, if the neighbor's batch had the "terminator" gene in it, would it?.. That's what we are discussing in this (sub-)thread... Let's stay on-subject, Ok?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Patent infringement by hawk · · Score: 2, Informative

      >See Monsanto v. Schmeiser and foreign counterparts.

      Please do.

      The court there found that it was not a matter of his fields being contaminated, but of him using Roundup to kill the regular plants before harvesting "his" seed . . .

      hawk

    3. Re:Patent infringement by rkcallaghan · · Score: 1
      hawk wrote:

      The court there found that it was not a matter of his fields being contaminated, but of him using Roundup to kill the regular plants before harvesting "his" seed . . . Um, no they didn't. Here's a couple of choice quotes to help you out.

      The Court dismissed the argument that "use" of patented cells or genes applied only in the context of their isolated form. Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops [emphasis mine ~R] preclude "use" of the gene. and

      Even though the plants propagate without human intervention the realities of modern agriculture mean there is always human intervention in the growth of plants and thus farming is a method of "use" of plant genes. The Court ruled that Schmeiser deprived Monsanto of its monopoly on the special canola plant by storing and planting the Roundup Ready canola seeds pursuant to his commercial interests. Now I realize the case is very complicated, and there was a point where Schmeiser did use Roundup to conduct some isolated tests; I am merely pointing out that it WAS a matter of his fields being contaminated, and not of him using Roundup on his crops.

      The court simply took the position that even though the contamination was not found to be Schmeiser's fault; he should have destroyed all of the leftover seed instead of keeping it for next year. As pointed out elsewhere in the article, Canadian Law does not recognize "farmer's rights"; and rejected Schmeiser's (and most of the public's) opinion that he should have been allowed to reuse "his own seed". The court took the view that it was more like a disaster, a massive fire or flood that decimated his crops -- unfortunate, to be sure, but something for him to work out on his own, and not giving him the right to violate Monsanto's patents.

      Now, before I get flamed to hell for this, realize that I personally support Mr. Schmeiser and feel his case is a prime example of the sad state of legal affairs around the world today, a phenomenon not limited to the USA as this case demonstrates. Common sense has lost weight to doublespeak and incoherant legalese.

      ~Rebecca
    4. Re:Patent infringement by hawk · · Score: 1

      How odd. It was wikipedia's page that I was summarizing (and, yes, details are lost when you summarize, but if you read the case itself, you find the same thing [yes, I've read more than wikipedia on this]).

      That's an "interestng" summary of the court's position, but the fact remains that he used Roundup *multiple* times before harvesting for the next year, resulting in a seed crop that was--surprise!--almost entirely the monsanto crop.

      In short, the court found not that he he was liable for not weeding out orr throwing out the monsanto grain, but that he *deliberately* selected to make sure that he had Monsanto. In short, the court considered and rejected the claims that you are making (which was also made by the farmer)

      hawk, esq., not giving legal advice

    5. Re:Patent infringement by hawk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ahh,nuts. As long as I'm wasign time on this (the game is boring at the moment).

      From your own source:

      As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional three to four acres of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) of canola. ...
      While the origin of the plants on Schmeisers farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop. And then, from the Supreme Court decision itself,

      Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 percent was Roundup Ready Canola. ...
      In this case, the appellants' saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute "utilization" of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42. ...
      By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants' involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature. ...
      Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use. ...
      The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established. Amazing, actually reading the case utterly wipes out the claims made as to what happened (not a rare thing on slashdot).

      But wait, it gets better. From reading your post (and the similar ones in oh-so-many-threads, one might think that this farmer that deliberately selected for the monsanto genes had been wiped out.

      Now I'll switch to being a *real* wet blanket. Again, from the Canadian Supreme Court:

      The appellants' profits were precisely what they would have been had they planted and harvested ordinary canola. Nor did they gain any agricultural advantage from the herbicide resistant nature of the canola since no finding was made that they sprayed with Roundup herbicide to reduce weeds. On this evidence, the appellants earned no profit from the invention and the respondents are entitled to nothing on their claim of account. For those too lazy to read understand the issue, such as the author of the grandparent of this psot, I'll translate to English:

      1. The fammrer was not an innocent who happened to have a few stray plants with the Monsanto seed contaminate his crops. Rather, after litigation, the court found that he deliberately selected for the monsanto plants, killing his other crops to generate seed that was 95-98% monsanto.

      2. He still paid no damages.

      But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political screed . . .

      hawk, esq., still not giving legal advice.

      p.s. you can find the Canadian Supreme Court ruling at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html ...
  53. The 85% SOLUTION by StCredZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.

    The other 20% would still need some form of internal combustion vehicle for dealing with heavier loads. But this would be much easier to provide with biodiesel than all of the vehicular needs of North America.

    1. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Tesla, a $100k electric sports car with lithium (read: "expensive and problematic") batteries, only gets 200 mi. More realistic electric cars for the general public (with NiMH or some of the reduced capacity but greater safety and lifespan lithiums) are in the 50-100 mile range.

      Yes, that sort of range covers city driving. But people don't like having options eliminated from them, and don't want to have to rent or borrow someone else's vehicle when they need to go long distances. For good reason, too.

      I think the right solution until we can get battery power densities up is that used by the Volt -- a plugin hybrid. There's a small gasoline motor that only runs a generator (so it's light, simple, and cheap), and stays off unless you're going on long trips. When the gasoline motor is running, the car isn't quite as efficient as a normal hybrid, but is still more efficient than a regular car. It's similar to how modern trains work (except they use diesels for the generators).

      Around town, you run on batteries. When you want to go far, you still can. Seems ideal to me until the tech catches up..

      --
      By a scallop's forelocks!
    2. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that a solution that really only covers city driving is worse than useless, as it's more efficient and less frustrating to use mass transportation in cities.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a perfect world I'd agree completely.

      I'd hardly call today's US suburban sprawl *perfect* though.

      We need something that can do the routine driving around town jobs, reliably and efficiently without the negative impacts we're seeing from the internal combustion engine of today. Batteries do have environmental impact, but given how heavily recycled todays car starter batteries are (like 95%) this isn't something that can't be handled.


      200 miles on a charge would go a loooooong way towards solving our foreign fuel dependency too...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      This argument gets heard all the time. But it's simply not true. Yes, you can satisfy 80% of the trips made by an average family with an electric vehicle. But that's quite different than satisfying 80% of the USERS. That occasional trip, that 1 in 5 trip that can't be done by an EV (easily) is a show-stopper.

      Take a look at the 80/20 myth for a good explanation of how this dynamic works out in practice.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    5. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by Tim+Doran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somebody mod this up - the current crop of hybrids are a bad idea, designed to sell cars rather than conserve fuel. Your hybrid Camry, Accord or SUV engages the gasoline engine directly through the gearbox to assist in acceleration. This necessarily adds significant complexity and weight and requires a more powerful engine than would be used to simply charge the batteries.

      The parent post talks about the right way to do it - a small, simple gas or diesel engine used only to charge the batteries. No complex gearbox, no need for a lot of power from the engine, no bloat. And the engine can always run at peak efficiency.

      When ordinary small cars get comparable or better mileage than high-tech, expensive hybrids, you know marketing has run amok.

    6. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      i think the problem is that the "family car" is purchased with the intent of driving the whole family around, but most of its use is by one of the parents and one or fewer children. therefore, two "family cars" are purchased by the average american family, yet they are used to transport 50% of the family that they were purchased for. the typical american suburbanite house has a two car garage designed around the idea that a suburban family with 2.3 children will require two "family cars".

      no family is going to buy three cars (one for mom, one for dad, and one for the family) since most family budgets are based around two cars and there is the problem of getting the family fleet stored at night.

      a possible solution would be to invent a 2 or 3 seater plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid with minimal excess storage space (no back seat and no trunk, just room for a briefcase/schoolbag for each passenger) that gets 100 miles on a nightly charge, that fits in half the parking space of a typical min-van/SUV and that is half the cost of a typical family sedan or minivan. you would need to perfect not just battery and electric motor technology, but also light weight materials and aerodynamic design.

      with the tiny electric, mom and dad have their efficient "rides" to work and can chauffeur a kid or two around town or run errands, plus there is room in the garage and the family budget for a more conventional hybrid/flex-fuel/bio-diesel car for more traditional family use (vacations, shopping trips, etc.) where you need to travel a long distance, transport lots of people, or transport lots of stuff.

      there are tons of problems with such a small vehicle: safety, comfort, status, and feasibility to name just a few. if you are going to gut the car that badly you might as well just sell electric scooters and start a marketing campaign about how "cool" they are. maybe make a movie where will smith fights aliens on one.

      while this sounds great, the problem with revolutionizing residential travel with electrics is that it won't make much impact on fossil fuel consumption. most fossil fuel gets used by industry to haul our crap around the country or in industrialized agriculture to work millions of acres. there will always be a market for fuels of one kind or another for this reason.

      if you really want to make an impact on fuel consumption, change the way industry and agriculture work so that its less economical to make or grow everything somewhere else and transport it to the people who will buy it.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    7. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      Or, they could rent a gasoline car when they needed it.

    8. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no family is going to buy three cars (one for mom, one for dad, and one for the family) since most family budgets are based around two cars and there is the problem of getting the family fleet stored at night.

      No family, huh?

      I can guarantee you cannot backup that assertion.

    9. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by dbIII · · Score: 1

      People are thinking about these things the wrong way. You don't need an electric SUV when an electric bike does the job. For larger jobs there's electric trains and trams - or a (biodeisel/natural gas/deisel/anything really) bus. The important bit is not the edge cases of the people who live way out somewhere - if you have a place where large numbers of people want to get to the same place every day you can do something about it and overall less fuel is used no matter what people have.

    10. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by oatworm · · Score: 1

      if you really want to make an impact on fuel consumption, change the way industry and agriculture work so that its less economical to make or grow everything somewhere else and transport it to the people who will buy it. The only way that's going to work is if you start making more of everything locally, and sometimes that's not practical. For example:

      1. Grow a citrus fruit in Canada.
      2. Grow almost anything in Nevada. (Yes, I know there's agriculture here - lots of cattle and alfalfa. Not enough to feed Nevada, though.)
      3. Grow almost anything in Wyoming. (See above.)
      4. Have non-canned fruit during winter in most of the Northern Hemisphere.

      That's just agriculture. We could throw in "make steel in the desert" (requires water), "generate power" (NIMBYs), and a host of other products that we rely on that are either location-specific or just aren't practical to produce in many parts of the world. In fact, in many respects, attempting to make something locally could consume more resources than if you created it in more ideal conditions (i.e. farming in an area that requires heavy irrigation and water rerouting vs. an area where enough water falls from the sky). That's why we ship stuff all over the place to begin with. We wouldn't do it if it wasn't more efficient at some point in time.
    11. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by G-funk · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, where are the turbines? Having the drive only come from electric motors should make a turbine the ideal "backup generator" for long trips when you don't get a chance to plug in. Added to that, they'll run on almost anything that burns, so would require minimal modifications for future things such as biofuels or even (i assume) hydrogen.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    12. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have been wondering why some of the best technologies haven't been combined yet?

      All-electric drive allows for very efficient accelerating, cruising and regen-braking. (and if four individual motors are used, good traction control).

      Use a plug-in charger and a high-efficiency, smaller, gasoline engine with a generator to extend battery life (not having it run drive train means the engine runs at peak efficiency).

      Charge it at night, or while parked at the lot (run the motor for a little while). The gas engine doesn't have to be big enough to continually power the car, simply to extend the distance to something well within to daily commute.

      Combine that with the 6-cycle engine (injects water into hot cylinder to create steam, adding a second, weaker power cycle re-claiming waste heat), and you should have a pretty efficient hybrid car. Or perhaps use a different power-generating technique involving gasoline.

      I would wager that there are LOTS of people who don't need to go on >200 mile trips very often, and could use such a vehicle quite effectively.

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    13. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that you mean "practical range approaching 200 miles in Buffalo in January," which is quite a bit more range in sunny LA, and still isn't practical for people living in Texas and other western states with hundreds of miles between cities.

    14. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Small, (automotive sized) simple-cycle turbines are grossly inefficient.

    15. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say...

      Or, they could be anal enough to have as suitable gasoline car lined up before they needed it everytime they needed it. This includes the possibility that none may be available at a particular time or place.

      The fact that you don't have to be at anyone else's whims in terms of preplanning is rather the whole point of private cars.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Busses are dramatically inefficient.

      Trains and trams can be pretty efficient if implemented well.

      No electric bike is safe anywhere where there are busses or other really large motor vehicles wandering about.

      Any "mass transit" system requires buy in from politicians and a large up front cost.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most small vehicle backups store energy in flywheels.

    18. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      that's just agriculture as we know it today. that's just industry as we know it today. huge centralized operations are the most cost effective way to produce things based on the availability of cheap energy, current costs to access the transportation system, and the freedom to move large amounts of stuff anywhere at any time. change all of that, and suddenly you have to find a new way to do things and reduce your costs. real change doesn't take place without making real changes.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    19. Re:The 85% SOLUTION by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.

      Electricity comes from coal.

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
  54. shift the conflict geography? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

    So, we are going to abandon the politically unstable Middle East and start getting all of our fuel from Africa. Everyone knows that Africa has a reputation for political stability, and infrastructure.

    Why is it that we never discovery an abundant fuel resource in Canada, Switzerland, or some other stable non-threatening geographical locale?

    Pardon me for pointing out the obvious...

    1. Re:shift the conflict geography? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Probably because every locale which is stable politically is (as a general rule) developed, with an economy, infrastructure and other traits of modern nations. Chances are, all the stable countries already used up all of their resources getting to the point where they are. As such, countries that are underdeveloped and unstable, may still not have used up their resources, so logically, when searching, we will find the most resources in these unstable locales still untouched.

    2. Re:shift the conflict geography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that we never discovery an abundant fuel resource in Canada
      We have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_tar_sands

      Unfortunately, it's just about the most environmentally unsound source of fossil fuel imaginable, but that's not stopping every energy company under the sun from rushing in to claim their piece of the pie.
    3. Re:shift the conflict geography? by Hirsto · · Score: 1

      We already import >1,500,000 barrels a day from Canada of which >220,000 barrel are extracted from tar sands.

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html

  55. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by JoshHeitzman · · Score: 1

    Perhaps no expensive equipment to harvest, but building all those concrete pools and greenhouse is going to require some substantial capital outlay just to get started.

    --
    Software Inventor
  56. Tell me, Mr Anderson... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
    ...what good is a vast prairie covered in ($biofuel) when you have no... rainfall?

    2007 arctic sea-ice is an unprecedented 20% smaller than the previousrecord low year - 2005.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-macdonald13jul13,1,4424613.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true *shrug*

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  57. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I like to get high, and the government is wasting your tax money. Now do something about it, and stop voting for those Drug War assholes.

    1. Re:OK by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      ...and the government is wasting your tax money. Now do something about it, and stop voting for those Drug War assholes.

      I agree, regrettably the libertarian party hasn't taken off yet in America.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    2. Re:OK by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      I am I'm backing Ron Paul.

  58. i'm reminded of a quote by Raplh Waldo Emerson by non · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered."

    --
    ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
  59. Some drawbacks, some real benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did some googleing...

    First off: Jatropha can only tolerate a slight frost.

    Second: Although the stuff prefers to live in arid to semi-arid (250mm-1000mm/year) its yields become greater when you water them. Look out water tables!

    Third: Yields were often MUCH lower in trials. Like 20/25% of the hoped for 1900 l/hectare.

    Lastly: There's nothing stopping corporations from stepping in and usign economies of scale (and goverment connections to grab water resources) to drive these new marginal-land farmers back into poverty.

    Good thing one: These things are built to stop wind erosion (and water run-off, and soil compacting) so marginal land could eventually become more productive. Farmers are already using Jatropha as a one in every seventh rows.

    Second: The pressed seeds are good ferterlizer.

    Third: Marginal-land farmers can still press these 40% oil seeds and use the oil DIRECTLY into their own personal (abet, modified) diesel generator. Note: The oil needs to undergo "transesterfication" to be used as regular diesel fuel. What's transesterfication? Wiki it yerself, lazy!

    Kudzu factor:Low actually.

    One: It takes 2 years to produce seeds.
    Two: Seedlings are edible by animals.
    Three: Jatropha can't compete (naturally) in wetter climates.
    Finally: It's a large bush/small tree (think hedge) not a vine that can grow 6 freekin' inches a day.

  60. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    Bravo. I especially liked the part about "100's of hectares of 1m deep concrete pools" in the desert.

  61. Triffids by cliveholloway · · Score: 1
    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  62. It is 4:20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know what you car is smoking?

  63. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by joib · · Score: 1

    Algae biodiesel might happen some day. It's no silver bullet though, see e.g some points raised by an expert in the field.

  64. Environmental impact from industrialized growth by multimediavt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok folks, we've seen this time and time again throughout history. Someone finds a cool plant that does something wonderful and then mass plants it outside its native habitat and it starts growing wild and taking over native plant stocks. Can you say kudzu!?!?!? I hope someone stops and thinks about this before they take a knee jerk reaction and start commercializing this stuff and we end up with a greater natural disaster than just polluting our environment. This plant sounds very hearty and seems to offer some interesting possibilities, but let's not go off half cocked at every possibility for replacing fossil fuels!

    1. Re:Environmental impact from industrialized growth by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      That would be understandable if you're talking plants with no real value, but with improving technology to derive ethanol from plant cellulose, all that kudzu weed will suddenly become useful as a cellulose source of ethanol. In fact, all that plant waste from agricultural production will suddenly find new life as an ethanol source.

  65. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

    Yeah we'd never be able to get that much water to the desert

  66. Got to go by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Jatropha, an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation...

    I can hardly wait to be stuck in a traffic jam where the smog could instill yet another kind of 'need to go' to the situation.

    --
    -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
  67. Hemp is not that course by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    I've worn a hemp fibre shirt, but not one made of jute or sisal.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Hemp is not that course by Shatrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you think hemp isn't course[sic] it is because hemp clothing is generally about half cotton.
      100% hemp is going to feel like canvas, which might have something to do with the fact that the word canvas comes from cannabis.
      Hemp is good for lots of things, but the only logical reason to wear it as clothing is a political statement.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  68. Castor oil seed too by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    That cures constipation and produuces a lot of oil.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  69. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a troll. WTF?

  70. Biofules = Deforestation by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    The way I understood it the main problem with biofuels is that simply conservation of energy requires you to use a very huge area of land to grow the plants. Now the same area of land could instead be used to grow trees or other CO2 absorbing plants and this would have a [much] greater impact on the CO2 balance of the atmosphere. That is, even when you take into consideration that you displace a large quantity of fossil fuels, reforestation of farmland would be better for the environment.

    I could be wrong but it seems to me that the best way to deal with energy distribution is through the electric grid. Whatever fuel will be used in the future it will probably be something that can be readily re-charged or regenerated using an electric current. That way you suddenly have a lot more options for actually generating the energy, ranging from renewables to nuclear or something else. Currently my bet is on batteries, probably not Li-Ion ones, but we shall have to see what comes out of nano-tech.

    I have to admit thou, it would be rather cool to have a nuclear powered car. However, I'm guess giving every nut who owns a car access to a lethal radiation source is a rather bad idea.

  71. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a bit behind the curve as well.

    Algae still hasn't left the pipe dream stage. I know, I bought into that pipe dream many years ago probably reading the same DOE papers you did. I even had a TDI Golf running soy biodiesel for a few years.

    Nobody has figured out how to productize algae yet and they have been trying for a while. Maybe it'll actually occur, but given it's been 20 years since the first studies and over 10 since the final results it's obviously harder than they first expected.

    All the desert ponds from salt water and heated by nuclear power is pretty pie in the sky.

    One pet peeve of mine is the hippies driving around in their 1978 mercedes diesels with "I'm saving the world" stickers on them. Thanks for saving the world by giving everyone cancer, there are few things worse to inhale than the soot coming out of these clunkers. Especially cringe when they have a baby in the back seat.

    Biodiesel is great and all, but it's not a full solution. If you want to support it, go for it, but at least get a late model diesel that isn't spewing tones of fine particulate matter. The next generation engines are much better in this regard.

    -Nic

  72. Another Weed by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1, Interesting

    jatropha may replace biofuels like ethanol that require large amounts of water, fertilizer, and energy, making their environmental benefits limited.

    Seems to me you can say the same thing about Hemp.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  73. 'Cause it's illegal, you dickhead!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how the hemp promoters are uninterested in other coarse-fiber crops, like jute, sisal, kenaf, and manila. Or in other low-cost sources of cellulose, like straw, bagasse (sugar cane after sugar extraction), and similar agricultural waste. No, somehow they're attracted only to hemp.

    What a fucking ignorant comment!! Hey, Cap'n Duh, we would look kind of silly fighting to make production of any one of the other coarse-fiber crops you listed legal in the US, now wouldn't we?
  74. Re:hemp is a gateway fuel by yerM)M · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think he is trying to convince you that hemp is a getaway fuel, not a gateway fuel.

  75. You're mistaken. by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    Ethanol is most criticized, and with due cause. Traditional methods of ethanol production (for instance) deserve criticism. Using only corn kernels is horribly inefficient, particularly when corn is a food source.

    But the old ways are changing. The State of Georgia will host the nation's first cellulosic ethanol production facility [dailykos.com]. Cellulosic ethanol production is more than 15 times more efficient than traditional production methods. Any green biomass can be used: corn kernels, corn stalks, corn roots, switchgrass, cane sugar, tree chips, industrial green waste, and even pig shit. This is the future of biofuels.

    Range Fuels is building the new facility in Georgia. They do not use any biomass also used as a food source for humans or animals. The Georgia plant will use industrial tree waste from the many paper mills in the region.

  76. dont repeat the "palm oil" fiasco by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A few years back, some European countires became infatuated with merits of palm oil- then thought to be the most efficient biodiesel feedstock. So farmers basically tore up thousands of square miles of jungle in Indonesia to meet demand. Then someone calculated the lost forest would take centuries to replace the carbon-recycling of existing vegetation with biodeisel.
    Farmers are smart. They recognize short terms profits as well as any other entrepeneur.
    Ideally you'd like to palnt these crops in carbon-poor areas like rangeland and desert. But farmers will convert rich croplands and forest for even more production.

  77. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I just did a search for "biofuel from algae" and found over a million hits.

    That makes me think when you say this

    "The man doesn't want you to know."

    what you really mean is

    "I'm an idiot who is easily convinced by people smarter than me to believe things that only makes sense to those with sub 70 IQs or severe brain damage"

    And before you try to protest, do the search yourself, and witness the high profile publications that discuss algae as a fuel source. There's no way any intelligent person could claim what you claimed.

  78. Mosquitos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But wouldn't acres of open water coated with algae become a breeding ground for mosquitos?

    I can see it now....

    The good news: We've reduced emissions by 50% and the price of fuel by 70%.

    The bad news: Every person on the Earth has contracted malaria or dengue fever.

  79. Idiot greens... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > And that's also the reason why people will keep on dying until we make this punishmen
    >t for this sort of corruption hurt like hell.

    Except for one problem. Nobody died. No radiation leak, Nothing. Which make you a moron.

    Looks like the greens and unions have teamed up to take that plant out, if I had to make a guess just from reading the one new account you linked, union goons were responsible for this 'accident'. News flash. There is nothing in a cooling tower that is more dangerous than steam. Which explains why they the operators weren't all that worked up over it, because they actually understand the technology they are using. The worst that could happen is what did occur, a total structural failure forcing them to drop to half generating capacity until they can repair or replace it.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  80. Kudzu is edible by hlomas · · Score: 1

    You can eat kudzu as well.

  81. Euphorbiaceae by k31bang · · Score: 1

    Since Jatropha is in the same family as the Castor oil plant (Ricinus communis), how similar are their oils? I do realize that a family is quite broad.

    --
    -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  82. Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Informative

    I spend several weeks in India last summer studying Jatropha.
      My wife's father S.W. Mensinkai founded University of Agricultural Sciences in Dharwad, near Hubli in Karnataka India (8 hrs by train north of Bangalore). He is considers the father of plant genetics in India. They are doing genetic engineering of Jatropha there.

    See photo's
    http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/images6/index.html

    One of the programs they are pushing is for farmer to plant Jatropha on the borders of other crops in the fields, turns out the bulls that wonder freely in India will not go near the stuff, so a row of these trees keeps them out of the farmers crops.

    Very interesting work.

    I brought back a hand full of seeds with me, and planted them, but they didn't take, maybe the Airport X-ray scanners killed them.

    Anyhow;
      Jatropha is related to the Castor bean plan that is responsible that the neurotoxin ricin is derived from.
      It also have a toxin called curcin that is similar to ricin.

      I don't know if burning Jatropha oil release this curcin toxin into the air?

      But apparently when it's pressed to get the Oil out, the curcin remains in the "Cake" this is the solids left behind after the seeds have all the oils squeezed out.

    From: http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/plant/jatropha/jhast.htm
    -------------
          2.5 Poisonous parts
                            All parts are considered toxic but in particular the seeds.
          2.6 Main toxins
                            Contains a purgative oil and a phytotoxin or toxalbumin
                            (curcin) similar to ricin in Ricinis.
    ------------

      Apparently Canola oil (Short for Canadian Oil)is a genetically modified Rape seed (in the mustard family) with the toxins removed.

      So if Jatropha had it's toxins removed through genetic modification it could also be a valuable food product.

    Later in 2006 I moved to Santa Barbara and it turns out the first company in the US to start producing Jatropha Oils and Bio-Diesel was here in Santa Barbara. http://www.biodieselindustries.com/ They were even doing a project with the local High School to grow Jatropha.

    Also Jatropha Oil is being use on the Indian Railways for some time too. I guess the plan is to plant Jatropha trees along the tracks, it keep the animals off the tracks and also since labor is very cheap, they would use the same trains to harvest the tree's for oil to power the trains.

    One of the projects I was thinking of was to develop an engine optimized to run on Jatropha Oil.
    More importantly these three wheeled auto-rickshaws (called Tuck Tucks in Thailand) all use the exact same engines, so the idea is to make a direct drop in engine for rickshaws. The rickshaws there are Two-stroke gas engines and are a major source of pollution there spewing clouds of choking soot behind them. Maybe some day.

    More good links:
    http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/10/20/stories/2005102002021100.htm
    http://www.biodieseltechnologiesindia.com/
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/tnt_starts_biod.html

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is biofuel is great as long as poor 3rd world countries like india are the ones to plant the toxic weed everywhere, and we get to use their cheap labour to perform the back breaking work?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      It's not Toxic unless your planning on eating it, I am sure it no worse then Gasoline or Diesel which I don't recommend eating either.

      As far as harvesting, you don't understand the India thinking. For them they view it as helping the poor to survive where using a machine would put them all out of work. I don't really believe that, I think they would just end up with better jobs maintaining and operating machines like we do here.

      Anyhow Jatropha can be harvested using coffee harvesting machines that basically shake the trees till the fruit falls off.

      Also anything that allow poor countries to produce something exportable would help there economies as a whole, assuming you believe in globalization. But you can't fight the inevitable.

      > cheap labour to perform the back breaking work?

      I don't see vegetarians complain that Mexicans who are living in horrible conditions pick the food they eat, just drove by 1000's of them on my way to work today, I really do feel for them.

      But for me too work on this computer, someone need to grow and harvest the food for me since if I spend my time doing that, there will be no time to program.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by matt20 · · Score: 1

      I sent for some seeds from India a couple of years ago. I have 5 plants growing. The one exposed to the most sun is doing the best. They do grow like weeds -- fast that is. I haven't harvested the seeds. I don't know how I'm going to squeeze them yet. I live in Gainesville, Florida. They seemed to survive the winter without too much damage. I don't think they could go too much further north.

      If diesel conversion technology advances, a farmer could grow his own fuel and also sell the converted diesel -- cutting out the middle man.

    4. Re:Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Canola oil (Short for Canadian Oil)is a genetically modified Rape seed (in the mustard family) with the toxins removed.

      Just to clarify, Canola was obtained through conventional plant breeding, by selecting Rape plants with lower erucic acid content. Although that is technically "genetic modification", that isn't what most people think of.

    5. Re:Jatropha Photo's and my research on it. by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      You need to get a screw press to extract the oil, this is the same device used for most plant oils.
      Also search for "oil extraction machinery" and "oil mill machinery"

      I live in the Southern California Desert some 40 miles from the Mojave Desert, The climate is very similar to India where I had seen these Jatropha plants growing.

      If you get a seed harvest, can you send me some?

      John

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  83. Re:Poisonous? MOD BUDGENATOR UP, please! by eck011219 · · Score: 1

    Cool. Got it. Thanks!

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  84. Renewable energy that will starve you to death. by flavor_strip · · Score: 1

    I think its interesting to note how biofuel crops compete with food production. Most of the feritile land in the world is already being used for food. In the long run, I don't see how biofules can produce enough fuel without starving us to death unless they can convert the food crop by-products into fuel (french fry grease). Jatropha can grow in a lot of places other plants cannot, so it may be one of the best biofules, but biofuel in general may not be such a great idea. Plants only get 1-3% effeciency in converting sunlight into energy, while solar arrays can get >40%. Obviously, solar arrays are much more expensive than plant seeds, so biofules may be worth it for poor countries, but there are a lot of clean alternatives to biofuel that won't starve us to death. Scientific American ran a similar article back in July. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=71EF7817-E7F2-99DF-3BD5B4BB0F2B9FBE&pageNumber=1&catID=2&colId=5

  85. Jatropha Oil? by smaugy · · Score: 1

    They had an opportunity to call it Chakan Oil and they didn't take it :(

  86. Everyone goes rushing in... by Mr+Otobor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon it would be good to look for the downsides of this wonderful, almost free, all-natural cure for our ailing internal combustion engines. A cursory look around at some sources (I'll let you do your own homework) will reveal several downsides to this plant.

    Problem number 1: Not really good for anything but fuel. Plants currently grown provide food, clothing, or, in some cases, building supplies. Some plants grown now even provide for multiple outputs. Corn (food, feed, fuel, chemicals) is a great example. Soybeans are another good example.

    Problem number 2: As I'm sure at least a couple of folks will figure out from the numbers, you'd need to grow this stuff on a truly massive scale to put a dent in the amount of hydrocarbon fuel now supplied by petroleum. That scale would be so massive as to make #1 a significant problem. Do you want to eat or drive your car?

    Problem number 3: Some people will look at #2 at either a small or large scale and answer that they want to eat and to drive (or sell fuel to the people that drive). And that will likely mean cutting down and/or burning more forests to make more farmland which seems a bit counter-productive.

    Problem number 4: A high enough demand for biofuel will tip the balance on what gets produced. As acres of land previously growing food are switched over to growing biofuels, the cost of food will rise. There are a couple of ways of looking at or explaining this the easiest being that as the supply of food drops against a constant (or, really, growing) demand the price people are willing to pay for that food rises. In any case, the poorest people, many of them in fact farmers, will then suffer a proportionally higher cost to feed themselves even though they may participate only indirectly in petroleum or biofuel consumption.

    Problem number 5: YAIS (Yet Another Invasive Species). Read about this plant. It is a badass. It's a badass because it comes from a place where hardly anything else can live and all the animals and insects are looking for something, anything to eat. You don't want to plant this in Ohio. Or Brazil. Or China. Or anywhere else that you don't plan on having this as an invasive and problematic pest plant for the next 1000 years.

    F'ed up, huh? I know things like biofuel are meant only to be a stopgap to bridge us over to more efficient and/or less immediately damaging fuel conversion technologies and fuel sources, so it's not 100% right to bash them and say 'This does nothing!' but I think it is useful to play the Devil's advocate given the amount of excitement often heard in the same breath and the corresponding lack of analysis that too often accompanies it.

    1. Re:Everyone goes rushing in... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Your comments is the reason why oil-laden algae is probably the best long-term solution for biofuel production.

      With oil-laden algae, not only do you get diesel fuel and heating oil easily (and with further refining probably a larger range of motor fuels and lubricants), but also the "waste" from the initial processing could be processed into ethanol, animal feed and/or plant fertilizer. And unlike plant-based biofuels, oil-laden algae will not significantly interfere with food production.

  87. Re:Just use hemp. Eat or Be Eaten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Firesign Theater Eat or Be Eaten http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/album.php?album=eobe

    The film centers around a Morning TV show's coverage of Kudzu County and it's upcoming annual virgin sacrifice to the Kudzu Vine, which, if not satiated, will take over the town.
  88. What all good Afghani farmers should be planting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Sugar Cane
    >>>> 2. Poppy
    3. Jatropha
    4. Wheat
    5. Corn
    6. Pumpkins
    7. Tomatoes

    Personally I would grow Pumpkins because the seeds taste good when lightly salted.

  89. Re:Poisonous? MOD BUDGENATOR UP, please! by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Now that I'm home and can get to my bookmarks, check out the journey to forever if you want to know how to actually do it yourself.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  90. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    Why isn't anybody being serious about doing this?  Do you know?  What's the big holdup?

    I'm seeing giant windmill blades being carted up the freeways of my city every day these days, but no algae farms.

  91. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confucius say, never listen to experts with an @aol.com email address.

    Bring on the Hemp/Aglae Biodiesel!

  92. time to get busy. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The new reactors are being shipped in on the ponies we're getting from Iraq, right?

    You can laugh at it all you want, but, the facts are inexorable.

    a) economic wealth is directly related to energy consumption.
    b) in order to produce more wealth, we have to have more energy per capita.
    c) conservation flies into the face of a & b
    d) therefor, we need to have more energy.
    e) there are not enough fossil fuels to do the job, and there's enough science to say its bad to burn that much, even if there were.
    f) nuclear fission is politically impossible becuase of environmental concerns about nuclear waste
    g) solar power does not produce energy on the planet for us to use. If we use:
    "Because of its spherical shape, at any instant the Earth receives on average half the incident solar flux, that is, 684 watts per square meter. ..." Dept of Energy, that means we would need to have the solar flux of 402 square meters at perfect conversion efficiency in order to power ONE car at a rate of performance comparable to that of my old beloved 2004 GTO.

    What other energy source is there? Please, clue me in! The answer is fusion! Now, I know that it's not "possible" right now. But, if we can blow a half a trillion on Iraq, why couldn't we take the next "blow" and do a systematic program to raise a generation of physicists, then, assign them to various aspects of the commercial fusion problem.

    I just can't see why we can't just "get er done." Hell, the a-bomb was built in 4 years with 1940s technology, once we willed it.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:time to get busy. by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Fission is here right now. Fusion? Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but the folks who are working on fusion are really really smart, and really really dedicated -- and they have failed for 55 years and counting. Not through lack of trying or lack of funding, but because the problem is infinitely harder that the people who aren't in the field can imagine.

      The only way fusion is coming as a viable power source in the next three decades is on the backs of those flower-fed ponies from Iraq.

    2. Re:time to get busy. by Copid · · Score: 1

      What other energy source is there? Please, clue me in! The answer is fusion! Now, I know that it's not "possible" right now. But, if we can blow a half a trillion on Iraq, why couldn't we take the next "blow" and do a systematic program to raise a generation of physicists, then, assign them to various aspects of the commercial fusion problem.

      I just can't see why we can't just "get er done." Hell, the a-bomb was built in 4 years with 1940s technology, once we willed it.
      I've been saying this for years. We went to the moon just for the hell of it using barely more than slide rules (yes, I understand the politics behind it, but seriously--it was basically a really cool dick-waving exercise). If you think about the amazing things that can be accomplished with just a fraction of our national resources (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out that we spent more on lip balm during the 12 years of the Cassini program than we spent on the Cassini program itself) and what a tremendous amount of cash we waste doing spectacularly stupid things, it's hard to believe that we're not running a Manhattan Project every few years for something useful like nuclear fusion, supersonic passenger flights, etc.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  93. It's Not That Bad by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation

    Sure, we all dislike being blocked up - but it's nothing to kill yourself over.

  94. Awesome by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

    I look forward to purchasing my fuel from the back of High Times new fuel division!

    --
    www.isoHunt.com
  95. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 1

    Some strains of biodiesel-capable algae are salt-tolerant - I think that's a key for biofuels. There's plenty of saltwater on the planet, just not so much fresh water.

  96. Sure... by hitmanWilly1337 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    How long before the gov't makes this illegal like they did with hemp, to keep the oil companies in business? It's not like hemp gets you high, it would just hurt DuPont and a bunch of other big companies, like this might hurt oil companies. I'm tired of this big gov't, big industry circle jerk that we seem to have going in this country. I guess if you can bribe enough senators (and don't tell me "campaign contributions" aren't bribery), you can do anything. Hell, the boys in DC will even start a war to help their profits. Does anyone remember how in history, it's been corruption that has brought down every major civilization. I'm afraid we're heading for the same thing here in the US...

  97. OUCH!!! by realmadpuppy · · Score: 1

    "after oil is pressed from its nuts"

  98. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Real biofuel folk know that Algae is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    So is fusion.

    Not to mention it's the easiest thing to grow (water, dirt, shit, sunlight).

    Unfortunately, this part is not true. They've tried for decades, and they could never make it work. Algae starts dying off early, and keeps dying.

    If you're so sure about it being magic, go mortgage your house, empty your bank accounts, and invest.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  99. Your challenge by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    I'll accept it. First however, you need to produce the ethanol gallons/acre capability of Kudzu. Simply saying it does not make it true. And comparing it to corn is not saying much, corn is toward the bottom of the scale. Kudzu while being an avid grower produces a smaller amount of usable mass. So I'm confident we can easily best it.

    So can you substantiate (back up) your assertion? Let's have a go at real numbers. Startign with the fact that Kudzu per acre biomass yields are in the 2-4 ton range for dry yield. That's really low. Switchgrass, by comparison is in the 12-15 ton range, and Miscanthus in the 12-30 ton range.

    Cellulosic technology makes Miscanthus and Switchgrass the two most prolific ethanol yield plants for the US, not Kudzu, and not hemp. Oh and contrary to your claim cellulosic conversion is not cheap - yet. It will be in time, but not today.

    While we're at it, harvesting of kudzu has it's own problems, such as it slow water shedding properties introducing difficulties in baling and storage of it.

    Just goes to show, that when someone starts with "we've been shouting ...insertsomethinghere.. assholes" you know they are likely to be full of something themselves. Rational people with valid data generally don't start discussions like that.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  100. Diesel-electric trains work this way... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Diesel-electric trains work this way. There's a diesel engine which runs a a constant RPM generating electricity to drive the train.

    The main reason for doing it is that you don't need a gearbox. A train which had to change gears would be a real disaster.

    Electric motors have mountains of torque to get the train moving and the fact that the diesel part runs at constant RPM means the engine can be highly tuned for efficiency.

    I don't know if a car could work this way, but it's a thought.

    If you include some capacitors in the system they could give you a huge push for a quick getaway at traffic lights, overtaking, etc. This would reduce the overall power requirements of the generator and improve efficiency even more.

    --
    No sig today...
  101. I can't decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts i can't decide whether to be turned on or off by this proposition...
  102. How do you harvest it? by oni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kudzu you assholes

    ok, I'll bite. How do you plan to harvest kudzu? It's not like wheat that just stands up in nice rows ready to be cut. Kudzu wants to climb something. If you plant it in the middle of an empty field it'll spread out, but not get more than two or three inches off the ground until it finds something it can climb. I hardly think the amount of usable biomass you get from something three inches off the ground justifies the cost of clearing the field. When kudzu climbs something, it wraps around it. How do you plan to pull it off a tree without killing the tree?

    I'm not writing you off, I'm just pointing out a problem with your plan. Invent some kind of armature that you can let the kudzu climb, and that you can then get the kudzu off of, and patent it, and I think you'll be on to something.

    1. Re:How do you harvest it? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I've seen the kudzu 'statuaries' here in Ohio... Does kudzu need to climb on living things, or can it creep on walls? If it doesn't need trees, we could build a field of frames or towers for the kudzu to grow. If it needs the organic structure of trees for climbing grip, we could use what are essentially telephone poles in the field. Kudzu seems to have no problem climbing dead trees, and that's what a telephone pole is. Think of tomato plant poles or grape trellises , on a much larger scale.

      And if you have a flat surface, like a tower or telephone pole, the kudzu vines may be easy to harvest by just pulling them down, if their grip isn't that strong.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:How do you harvest it? by rhakka · · Score: 1

      Small sticks? String grids? Just has to be something you can process right along with the plant material.

    3. Re:How do you harvest it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you have a whole field of flexible growing lattices... essentially vertically tilted conveyor belts? When the kudzu gets to the top of the lattices, they crank up, yoink all the kud off the root, and deposit it in nice piles at the field-edges, waiting to be baled and carted off.

      Or better yet, since cellulose is cellulose, why not let the kud grow in, on, among, around the switchgrass or miscanthus? Extra leaves gathering extra sun and carbon, and then you bale and process it all together as shared mass. If the kud is better at adding nitrogen to the topsoil, as was claimed, then perhaps a sympathetic relationship between the plants could be found?

    4. Re:How do you harvest it? by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      Hmm. How about taking the kudzu waste, and pressing it into rods, and using those to build lattices and towers and jungle-gym-type structures. Then you don't have to worry about preserving the structure -- just scrape the whole thing into a pile with a bulldozer and put a new one in place.

          - Alaska Jack

      PS Totally talking out of my butt here. Never even seen a kudzu plant.

    5. Re:How do you harvest it? by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      Simple wooden sticks and threads made from other waste material would not only be easy to use and cheap, but would also be able to be consumed in the cellulostic process and thus don't need to be filtered from the harvested crop. Simply machinery like a wheat cutter could still be used to harvest the crop, though slight modifications might need to be made.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  103. Better than kudzu? by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    Kudzu grows so fast that a cow can graze all day on it while standing still. What kind of marvels will this new wonder weed bring us?

  104. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    ive seen systems where it is placed in containers above ground and constantly agitated. pefect for the desert or anywhere else.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  105. Still by markov_chain · · Score: 1

    What about, God forbid, growing clovers and jatropha at the same time?

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  106. perpetual motion machine by v1 · · Score: 1

    Jatropha requires no pesticides, little water other than rain and no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts

    That last part sounds like the core of most perpetual motion machines. (or any other system they try to pass off as a "something for nothing" exchange, or "you get more out than you put in) To say that you can fertilze it with only its ground up remains implies that it somehow ends you up with more "nutrient-rich seed cake" year after year. You get out less than what you put in, never more, and almost never the same.

    Saying that I suppose is true - practically any plant can be fertilized with ground up bits of itself. The way it's stated here it just sounds like it produces it in the quantity required to fertilize the entire next year's crop of equal size. Assuming it's efficient at reuse though, hopefully only a small amount of fertilization is required. Otherwise every year either (A) the crop is smaller than the year before it, or (B) the soil is more barren (and less productive) than last year.

    Probably any plant that doesn't outright poison the soil it's grown in over time could do this.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  107. Generator Modules by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    One 90's electric car startup used a generator on a small trailer. This gave the same benefit as a plug-in hybrid, but without the weight penalty when not in use. If there is a standardized battery module, this might be able to accommodate a fuel tank and a generator with a somewhat smaller battery. I expect that such modules will be quite a bit larger than the average fuel tank, so this could be doable, especially with a gas turbine engine. An attachment on the tail of a car might be better as well.

    On second thought, if any technology comes along that makes these things practical, then it would make the plug-in hybrid even more practical anyhow.

  108. WSJ Jatropha story by monkeySauce · · Score: 1

    I first read about Jatropha in the Wall Street Journal, weeks ago. The article focused on Jatropha production in India. They only offer a snippet of the article online ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118788662080906716.html ) but the pictures and captions are also interesting:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118720945016998802.html?mod=2_1172_1

  109. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1
    Yeah, THAT turned out to be such a great idea:

    http://phoenix.gov/WATER/drpers04.html

    This drought constitutes the longest in the past 110 years of recordkeeping. ... Given that we could experience another 10 or more years of drought ... it is important to be aware of the steps that can be taken now to avert potential future impacts from severe, sustained drought. ... If, as some climatologists have predicted, the current drought is actually a return to "normal" conditions from a very long wet period, many temporary drought measures may have to become permanent.
  110. Fusion is just around the corner, i think by nido · · Score: 1

    I think fusion's been a failure because a lot of the current economic status quo would be irrelevant if the technology made it into the wild. Imagine that, instead of paying your pound of sweat to the electricity & oil companies every month, you ran your Mr. Fusion on tap water. You make a one time investment in the machine, and a trivial amount every month to supply your machine with H20. Pennies a month for all the clean electricity you could possibly use.

    I say this having met a rather brilliant grad student who was working on 'cold fusion'. At the time (2002) he said that he'd have to revise one of his papers because of recently published Tokamak (hot fusion) research. It had come out just like he thought it would, but he had to mention it anyways...

    Suppression wouldn't be so difficult - just indoctrinate students in the pre-ordained "Laws of Physics" (or "Laws of Thermodynamics"). This way, whenever the result doesn't come out like the Laws say they should, they'll figure the anomaly comes from their experimental setup. They'll never even suspect that their slight deviation from the expected result means that the Law itself needs to be revised.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Fusion is just around the corner, i think by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Yup, success is just around the corner. And the people who are resisting fusion are just a bunch of dead enders.

      And the check is in the mail, and I'll respect you in the morning.

  111. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    Real biofuel folk know that Algae is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    Ahh as in mythical, unobtainable, pipe dream?

    Hey you used the phrase. Maybe that phrase does not mean what you think it means.

    we're talking constant production, no expensive equipment to harvest.

    Yeah because we all know equipment to constantly skim just a fraction of a algae growth pond is so cheap that doing it on hectare scales is a paltry amount of money.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  112. Algae yields are over 50% and grow faster by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1
    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  113. Beautiful Irony by tacocat · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be funny/ironic if the next fuel boom came from those shit hole nations that we've been shipping food to for decades? I can just see their faces when they realize they are on the top of the energy pyramid (or is it the bottom).

    I think it would be wonderfully overdue and ironic. And, in some way, it wouldnt' surprise me in the least.

  114. Funny you mention all those hemp alternatives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause I never heard of any of them and w/ a little research... it appears you're right. Which makes me think it's more a lack of the word getting out. I was totally all for hemp, I was never presented with any information about better alternatives. I'm sure a lot of other help boosters are in the same boat. Hemp got a lobby, a grassroots one... but they got people talking it up.

  115. Requires no pesticides... by dlthomas · · Score: 1

    ... until we start growing it all over, and something decides to take advantage of this food source.

  116. Jathropa oil available by techspeak(c) · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its been years that my friend has been growing Jathropa in our desert town of Jaipur. He got the technology from Israel, one of the best places to learn about the plant. The seeds are sold for about USD60 per KG and are used to make aviation grade fuel. The rest of the plant is like a plant. I am not a farmer but I know that mustard oil can be used to light lamps and that vegetable oil can be used in furnaces after processing chemically.

    Jathropa and bio diesel (made from sugarcane) are being tested to power vehicles because they are cleaner fuels and can help protect the environment, because they do not leave any heavy water, nuclear waste or ocean bed unstabilities behind. The projects are being funded by the Government of India and the IITs.

    If anyone needs more information on this, I will try to find out and pass it on.

    --
    two cents..
    shashank
    http://www.techspeak.in/
  117. That wouldn't make sense, now would it? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Funny how the hemp promoters are uninterested in other coarse-fiber crops, like jute, sisal, kenaf, and manila.
    I wouldn't say "uninterested", but given that the War On Jute, Sisal, Kenaf and Manila doesn't cost a ton of money, turn several generations of kids into criminals, and justify the civil-rights horrors of the drug war as a whole (without weed, there aren't enough druggies to justify the whole mess), I don't think you're going to get people marching in the streets to protest it.

    Besides, the argument seems to be that it's not a harmful or dangerous plant, and it's in fact somewhat useful. The fact that there are other fibers that are also useful is beside the point.
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  118. Re:Seeds? What about the whole plant? by jlcooke · · Score: 1

    It's called a pump, much like the one in your pool and a filter. Multiply by N pools.

    The reason no-one's doing this is simple:
      - fuel makers aren't farmers, and don't want to get into agriculture.

    It's more profitable to buy oil seeds below market prices from desperate farmers and turn it into fuel than grow it yourself.

    Fuel makers are large chemical companies.

    I don't like being flame-bait here - but clearly most of the /. crowd hasn't thought this out.

    ps. Plant oils have the added bonus over ethanol of being usable for plastic production as well.

  119. And how does this solve global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will produce greenhouse gasses when used so it does not help us.

  120. Beware of the effects of a noxious non-native weed by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that the environmentalists here haven't cried foul about the cultivation of a non-native super weed. The potential for genetically modified plants to "take over" is one of the main arguments against GMOs. This plant sounds like it achieves that result with a plant that was genetically modified by nature.

    --
    Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
  121. Just Because I can. by grimacebrown · · Score: 1

    "An herbal constipation remedy that can be used as a fuel!? (Insert random joke about crapping in the woods.)"

  122. Yes, it's "new" by Flimzy · · Score: 1

    ... or something like that.

  123. I hope you're getting paid. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Because you sound like a tool who's shilling for them something fierce. I mean, wow. It would be quite sad if you were making an ass of yourself for free.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  124. Why coal is worse. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Coal is considered worse than wood as an energy source partly because methods of extracting it tend to be horrible destructive to the environment, and partly because when you're burning coal, you're releasing carbon which had been sequestered beneath the surface for a very, very long time. When you're burning trees, you're releasing carbon that was recently pulled from the atmosphere when the trees grew. The net carbon output of coal is positive; the net carbon output of the "grow a tree, burn a tree, grow a tree" cycle is zero.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  125. Something certainly will change. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    This has been alluded to, but I want to make it explicit.

    Something will change in order for this to be productive; diesel from dead dinosaurs will become more expensive. Twenty years ago, a process that could produce fuel for two bucks a gallon (in now-dollars) wouldn't find any buyers. Now, that imaginary process would be the hottest thing going. The difference over the twenty years wasn't in the process itself, but it nevertheless changed whether or not it was feasible.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  126. GM Diesel-Electric Hybrid by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    34 miles battery-only range, 444 miles with diesel generator. (Which is not even attached to the drivetrain.)

    Plus, integrated Segway storage!

    http://www.ohgizmo.com/2007/09/11/gm-opel-flextreme-concept-with-segway-storage/

  127. Mass transportation sucks in american cities by curri · · Score: 1

    Mass transportation sucks in most (at least many :) American cities, especially in the suburbs. I live in an Atlanta suburb, and it takes me almost the same time (and distance) to get to a MARTA station (subway) than to my work. I can't take a bus from my home, would need to take my car to go to the bus :)

    I lived in Mexico, and mass transportation there is much more useful, or at least more widespread. In the US, it seems the only useful mass transportation is city trains (subways etc), but you need to live very close to a station.

    Does anybody lives in a US city with good, citywide mass transit ?