Congress has a sensible solution to high gas prices: Drive less (truck, engine)

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by Mac_Muz

I don't know what switch grass is but will look it up. Once the world ran on hemp, as power and may have to again. You can feed bio electric with that and save trees. It can be grown to harvest 3 times a year and it adds nitrogen to the soil. Oils and fuls can be created from it as well in liquid forms, not to mention is is all bio-degradable.

Certain plastics like materials can be made of it, as can be papers, cloth, and cordage from fine thread to cabled roped.

I just don't know how it compares to switch grass.

The whole reason hemp is illegal, not even the kind smoked, is because in the 30's when oil was coming to be, hemp was too much competition for oil to stand up too. The oil lobbies knew that, and dished out hard coin to the Govt to create LAW

I agree with hemp. Around here you can easily spot the hemp along the roads (ditch weed) in the fall by all the finches hanging on the plants eating the seeds.

Switchgrass is another good option for ethanol. It is tougher to get it processed (a lot of people are working on that), but, unlike corn it is a perennial and grows in some pretty lousy soil. I think it will regrow for about 20 years before it needs replanting. it also grows in a very dense manner so the amount that can be harvested from an acre is much higher than corn.

[Mac_Muz]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

I agree with hemp. Around here you can easily spot the hemp along the roads (ditch weed) in the fall by all the finches hanging on the plants eating the seeds.

Switchgrass is another good option for ethanol. It is tougher to get it processed (a lot of people are working on that), but, unlike corn it is a perennial and grows in some pretty lousy soil. I think it will regrow for about 20 years before it needs replanting. it also grows in a very dense manner so the amount that can be harvested from an acre is much higher than corn.

I need to look that grass up. The name is new to me. Maybe it won't grow in NH, or if it does it could have some other name maybe.

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by Mac_Muz

I need to look that grass up. The name is new to me. Maybe it won't grow in NH, or if it does it could have some other name maybe.

Google

And the zones it will grow in

Google

This one probably will grow there

http://www.northcreeknurseries.com/i.../382/index.htm

[Mac_Muz]

Thanks for the links, I was just very tired and over heated, being LAZY

I was interested in pics to see if i knew of the grass. The last thing NH needs is some other invasive exotic plants, that isn't natural to here. I know how that goes.

And if this plant can't do all hemp can, then there is no point.

I won't grow it any way you look at it, as there isn't land enough where my food garden is to grow something I can't eat, less a few flowers for sceneic.

Reading one of the links I see it's native to the USA, but is it Native to NH? Still the rule is unless i can eat it I won't grow it. Only about 1/2 this puny 8 acers lot is field anyway. That little even if the house barn shop were torn down and the trees were all taken wouldn't make a dent in this for fuel.

[texdav]

Its just the same ole Dempocratic paln as the article makes claear. Its been more detailed before i highher gas prices to control consumption. A shift to more natural gtas which alos rewuires drilling starting with commercial transport has beeen proposed for year which the democrats have opposed. Its politics of energy really as we have seen.Pretty easy to come up with the same politcal solution when you stack the deck;really.Thye oppose all drilling which may not provide enough but it stops the outflow of money I what we paoduce and cosr nothig compared to the solutio which is basi9cally always anti-drilling and oil.Democrats plan means more dependency i near fture ;less jobs i a big industry and shipping more Us dollars over seas. We are not going to be energy dependent from oil even if we had the money to invest at unlimited amoungs for perhpas 50 eyars as other studies have poited out. Without it cheaper prices at even th4ese levels even pour othyer industries become less competitive than now.Looki at what the rest of the world is going;not goin to much more expensive energy but prodcuing what they can.Same old democratic plan of anti-oil thinking really.A administratio that can't come up with a energy policy when they controlled tweo brnches isn't going to now.

[Merc63]

Originally Posted by Mac_Muz

IMO nukes are not that clean and can be a tad risky, but maybe we can run another cable from Japan It seems they made a wasteland, so a new set of Nuke plants on the same trashed land shouldn't be any real problem is it ?

Gotta disagree with you on this, especially if you look at HOW the Japanese situation occured. Not many 40+ foot high waves in, say, Iowa, are there? How many up your way? Other than a couple of really old plants, how many nuclear accidents have there been worldwide? How about asking the US Navy about their nuclear accident record, where small reactors are on board a LOT of vessels.

Nuclear is less risky than driving around, that's for sure. And then we get into modern breeder reactors and pebble bed reactors that can be made quite small, put out a lot of power, and re-use the fuel rods over and over until they have about as much radiation as your smoke detector.

Switchgrass is a good fuel source as it can be grown in places that aren't being used for food crops (and places were we are actively paying people NOT to grow food crops), as can solar facilities (we could power most of the country on solar just using the area of land that's right now being paid to not grow crops, augmented by rooftop systems in major metropolitan areas, storing it in sodium batteries for night time use...)

[Magnum Mike]

About 3 or 4 years ago, I saw a program on TV that was about alternative sources of energy, and one of those was sewage. If I remember correctly, they mentioned that it can be used to produce fuels, one of which was natural gas, but I can't remember if it included gasoline for automobiles.

If it can be used as a source for gasoline, that's one source we'll never have to worry about running out of, as long as human beings are on the earth. Of course if someone comes up with an innovative way to get gasoline out of sewage, and that person gets a patent, as sure as fire starting when you throw a lit match on gasoline, the oil companies will be there to buy that patent, and nothing will ever become of it because it might reduce the oil companies' huge profits. Who knows, that might have happened already.

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by Merc63

Gotta disagree with you on this, especially if you look at HOW the Japanese situation occured. Not many 40+ foot high waves in, say, Iowa, are there? How many up your way? Other than a couple of really old plants, how many nuclear accidents have there been worldwide? How about asking the US Navy about their nuclear accident record, where small reactors are on board a LOT of vessels.

Nuclear is less risky than driving around, that's for sure. And then we get into modern breeder reactors and pebble bed reactors that can be made quite small, put out a lot of power, and re-use the fuel rods over and over until they have about as much radiation as your smoke detector.

Switchgrass is a good fuel source as it can be grown in places that aren't being used for food crops (and places were we are actively paying people NOT to grow food crops), as can solar facilities (we could power most of the country on solar just using the area of land that's right now being paid to not grow crops, augmented by rooftop systems in major metropolitan areas, storing it in sodium batteries for night time use...)

This incident Japan is going to be a huge setback for Nuclear....I am afraid. When thing like this happen is can be used to ADVANCE technology. But, I am afraid in this case it is causing a ripple of hysteria and bad will directed at Nuclear power, watch many factions run with the bad will....lefties and greenies.

[Philip T]

Actually have been following Congresses advice in this regard -- ie Drive Less -- quite independent of even knowing that specific advice -- but it pays off quite well. Not only save on the $4 per gallon of the max but also on the $2 or $3 per gallon when it is cheaper.

So I suppose the higher it goes, the more one could "save." But then again, I guess there are some boneheads who figure they are somehow cheated if they do not get enough butt-time sitting in a car or truck everyday?

[Pretzelogik]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

While driving will save gas in many cases thing won''t get done either !

Streetsblog Capitol Hill » Lawmakers Introduce Reality-Based Plan to Achieve “Freedom From Oil”

Go tell it to Monatanans and/or other western states where destinations are hundreds of miles apart.