Time for a world push for a renewable fuel resource!

I find it funny that in an age where oil and gas prices are beginning to make people change the way they carry out their every day lives, and now have to seriously consider how much fuel is going to cost them, and budget for it. Now isn’t it funny how the news and governments mention nothing about good ol’ Henry Ford and his thoughts in the 1930’s, no not his thougts his actual development of a car made from hemp and wait it also ran on it!
Hmm… I wonder if the reason no one ever hears about a push for this type of RENEWABLE resource to be legal and have some real R&D put into this is because of the huge grip that the Oil and Gas industry has over the Governments and its contributions to political parties, is it just me or is it time for some pprogressive thinking and action, cause I am strating to get fed up with cheap solutions being all around us:
"Henry Ford, inventor of the Ford automobile, recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated. Ford’s optimistic appraisal of cellulose and crop based ethyl alcohol fuel can be read in several ways. First, it can be seen as an oblique jab at a competitor. General Motors had come to considerable grief the summer of 1925 over another octane boosting fuel called tetra-ethyl lead, and government officials had been quietly in touch with Ford engineers about alternatives to leaded gasoline additives. As well, by 1925 the American farms that Ford loved were facing a growing economic crisis that would later intensify into the depression of the 30’s. Although the causes of the crisis were complex, one potential solution was seen in creating new markets for farm products. With Ford’s financial and political backing, the idea of opening up industrial markets for farmers would be translated into a broad movement for scientific research in agriculture that would be labeled “Farm Chemurgy.” The Ford Motor Company, in the 1930s, created charcoal fuel, methanol, and other compounds out of Cannabis-Hemp at their Iron Mountain, Michigan plant. It seemed Fords plans were well under way to engineering an era of Farm Chemurgy Why Henry’s plans were delayed for more than a half century remain a point of controversy to this day: Ethanol has been known as a fuel for many decades. Indeed, when Henry Ford designed the Model T, it was with the expectation that ethanol, made from renewable biological materials, such as Cannabis, would be a major automobile fuel. Surprisingly however, gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel in the early twentieth century. This has been speculatively attributed to the ease of operation of gasoline engines with the materials then available for engine construction, to a growing supply of cheaper petroleum from oil field discoveries, and the intense lobbying by petroleum companies for the federal government to maintain steep alcohol taxes, thereby restricting the economic feasibility of ethanol based fuels.

Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by sensationalist smear campaigns launched by vested petroleum interests. Gasoline had many recognized disadvantages as an automotive resource when compared with Cannabis-hemp fuel. The “new” fuel had a lower octane rating than ethanol, was much more toxic (particularly when blended with tetra-ethyl lead and other compounds used to enhance octane), generally more dangerous, and contained harmful threatening air pollutants. Petroleum was more likely to explode and to burn accidentally, gum would form on storage surfaces and carbon deposits would form in combustion chambers of the engines using it. Pipelines needed to be constructed for distribution from “area found” to “area needed”. Petroleum was much more physically and chemically diverse than ethanol and as such necessitated complex refining procedures to ensure the manufacture of a consistent quality “gasoline” product. And yet even with its obvious serious shortcomings when compared to cellulose fuels, Gasoline managed to become the primary fuel for the new automobile age, spurned on by huge cash incentives and infusions of several corporate entities wielding huge media budgets. The advertisement campaigns were sensational and relentless in coercing the general opinion towards acceptance of the inferior new gasoline over the ethanol based fuels."

I dunno people is it just me or does it seem like we are being scammed!!!

We are being scammed by ourselves. Until people take it upon themselves to make changes, we generally don’t see any, after all, it’s easier to bitch about gas prices, and the “man” controlling us.

They can pry my internal combustion engine out of my cold dead hands…

Mine too.

I’m not suprised that the oil companies supressed that technology - it would seriously reduce the (at the time) growing need for gasoline and petroleum. I wonder why people look back at technologies like this and get angry - it changes nothing. If you really care about the environment, get behind hydrogen technology - I’m wiling to bet that it burns cleaner than the hemp fuel as it is much simpler!

I also suppose it depends on which technology they go with - the two I’ve seen so far is one with actual combustion of hydrogen, the other one is a chemical reaction that rebonds the hydrogen with the oxegyn to create an electrical current to power electric motors.

I stand behind my choice of car. Like everyone else that drives an automobile, I made a choice of which attributes I find important in my car, and now I have to live with that. I get rather angry at people who drive giant 4x4s and SUVs with only one person in the vehicle and bitch about gas prices. You selected the vehicle you did, now live with your consequences.

Hydrogen power is not really a viable option. It does burn cleaner, but the energy cost required to produce hydrogen in large quantities is enormous. (Steam-Methane Reforming is one such process, and requires lots of natural gas, not to mention produces lots of CO2).

Cracking water using electricity isn’t really a viable option either yet, for the same reason you just mentioned.

I have faith though - I mean, if we can shoot people into space we can find a cheap energy source, as long as there is no interference from big business. Ballard Systems is currently doing real world testing with 5 hydrogen powered Ford Focuses in Vancouver right now, so we’ll se how their experiment turns out.

I’m not bitching about the car I have, I just think people need to start thinking outside of the box, we are becoming such a passive society that we are almost willing to accept anything that we are told/forced to, and it’s becoming ridiculous, I remember watching something on Truckers in Eastern Canada (YEARS AGO) blocking all the exits and entrances into the city center (can’t remember what city) until gas prices dropped and guess what they did. I’m sorry but Alberta is viewed as a rich province because of Oil and Gas and we are paying almost as much as anywhere else in the world, that is ridiculous, How much does anyone here think it would cost in Candian Dollars to fill up your car in a place such as Dubai, in the United Arab Emerites (Close to Saudi Arabia), Oh and this is with like 110octane I might add. Well in Canadian Dollars it would cost you about $15.00 to this day. So do you think we are getting jacked somewhere along the line, I do. I love my car and wouldn’t trade it for the world, but I would also love to be able to one day have a vehicle that could oh I dunno tow a boat, and not have it cost as much as the financing of either one would cost in gas to drive it down to Sylvan Lake or anywhere else for that matter.

Would you like to us to have apolitical prescence? I’m against the gun registry, speeding, GST and all sorts of stupid ideas. I am for capital pinishment, and other good ideas.

Speeding? You’re against speeding? How is that a political matter? Or did you mean speed enforcement?

I’m actually sick of the over-emphasis on speed enforcement and the overlooking of numerous other types of driving infractions that are as equal or more dangerous than just the act of “speeding” alone.

Speeding? You’re against speeding? How is that a political matter? Or did you mean speed enforcement?

I’m actually sick of the over-emphasis on speed enforcement and the overlooking of numerous other types of driving infractions that are as equal or more dangerous than just the act of “speeding” alone.[/quote]
I meant speed enforcement. If it impedes traffic flow and safety of road users I don’t agree with it.

Neither do I. I’m sorry, but I am sure that more accidents are caused by unsafe lane changes and lack of signalling than ever is by pure speed.

Look at the Autobahn - they have far far less accidents than we do, even though their fatality rate is higher. For that matter, driving tests are MUCH more difficult in Europe than they are here.

I laugh when politicians and officers claim that speeding tickets help save lives - especially photo radar. Last time I checked, something that indiscriminately fines you two weeks later whether you were operating the vehicle or not doesn’t seem like much of a traffic safety issue. After all, I never heard of photo radar pulling someone over for excess speed so they didn’t run someone down in a crosswalk. I like how the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket regardless of who is driving too - funny how when a cop pulls you over the owness is on the OPERATOR of the vehicle, isn’t it?

Anyway, getting back to the gasoline thing, there are a few points that have been missed here. First off, yes Alberta is drowning in oil, but most of it is coming from the tar sands and the process of extraction costs as much as 50% more than drilling oil pumped from the ground is. As with any industry extra cost is ALWAYS passed on to the end consumer.

The other thing is that we can hardly bitch about fuel prices when our entire society is supported and driven by the automobile. Almost anything you touch, own, or use has at some point in its life been exposed to an internal combustion engine, whether though shipping, bringing it home from the store, etc. We have less public transport than many other large countries, mainly because we don’t have enough people in this country.

The simple fact is that human nature dictates that to get rid of the automobile, we need to offer a more convinient, comfortable and cost effective option. Public transit is none of these things - they require huge inital expenditures, are not terribly convinient compared to your average automobile, and can hardly be considered comfortable compared to said automobile as well. How many of you would drive your cars even if the current gas price doubled? I suspect almost all would. There are more cars now in Britain than there has ever been, and their gas price is $1.95 Canadian per litre.

And lastly - before I forget. If anyone ever confronts you and tells you how automobiles pollute the environment, remember this story that I heard from TSN Motoring 2005’s Jim Kenzie. Saab wanted to prove how much better today’s cars were on the environment, so they took one of their 1950’s era 2-stroke cars and hooked it up to an exhaust sniffer. Of course, since 2 strokes burn oil, the pollution was off the charts. Then they hooked the tailpipe of the 50’s car into the intake of one of their new 9-3’s, and transferred the sniffer to the 9-3’s tailpipe. Initially, the pollution was still off the charts, but as the ECU adjusted itself and with the catalytic converters warmed up the measured pollution dropped to near zero. Today’s cars are so emissions friendly that in some cases they actually CLEAN the air, to a degree of course.