<p>Agricultural sectors are under pressure from food production.
Population growth, climate change, desertification, water scarcity, soil destroyed by chemicals, monocultures, ...etc. will increase that pressure.</p>
<p>That's why I don't think it's a good idea to buy your mobility with an enormous amount of area.</p>
<p>Hemp as a construction material has been known for a long time and in the replacement of e.g. aluminum then certainly is useful. Its properties as a dampening and insulating material are also outstanding. It has long been possible to insulate buildings with natural fibers (&amp; carbon storage) and replace environmentally harmful materials such as polystyrene, etc.</p>
<p>As a drive technology for aircraft, however, hydrogen produced from offshore wind power, for example, would certainly be the lesser CO<sub>2</sub>  evil than hemp oil.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there is a way to give the fast-growing hemp a chance and a future. Vertical growing on an industrial scale is nothing else than stacking CO<sub>2</sub>  absorbing plant growth with artificial lighting. Here you can boost the sequestration of CO<sub>2</sub> on highly productive, controlled areas by a factor of ~10,000 and use CO<sub>2</sub>  as an efficiency-enhancing fertilizer.</p>
<p>In a cube with a side length of 100m, up to 150,000t CO<sub>2</sub> /y can be absorbed and thus replace ~100km² of open land area.
Of course, this also applies to other cultivated plants such as vegetables, salads,...</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-20T16:29:21.863Z
2022-01-20T16:56:10.973Z
2022-01-20T16:56:10.973Z
Rammstein
<p>Burning crop residue to fly from A to B is no different than burning trees to generate electricity which is almost the same as (the time scales differ) burning coal or oil to generate electricity.</p>
<p><em>My comment other site</em></p>
<p>While the first generation of biofuels wreaked havoc on food markets by diverting agriculture food staples into our gas tanks. The second generation wreaked havoc on the environment, by diverting tropical nations into growing palm oils and jatropa to produce in home fuel blends by bulldozing the rainforests. The third generation of biofuels will ruin both and make matters worse. The taxpayer funded debacles of ethanol and biodiesel made from food crops did more harm than good, the hope for finding a substitute for oil had shifted to algae and cellulose. Both of which are scams……plant matter and crops have to be planted, fertilized, harvested, transported, and converted; ALL those stages use energy predominantly using fossil energy.</p>
<p>All plant matter uses cellulose in it’s biology, It is too early to say whether or not cellulosic ethanol can ever be produced with a net energy gain as a result – at the moment, it is impossible. We can only hope that scientists will never succeed, because what we do know for sure is that cellulosic ethanol will be an even larger threat than the first generation of biofuels.</p>
<p>Cellulosic ethanol is made using inedible parts of the plant…stalks, roots and leaves. It can also be made of non-edible plants, like switchgrass or stuff like wood waste, branches, tree trimmings, conifer needles, shit like that…..sounds like a good approach. However this leaves behind one crucial element; THE SOIL. In nature, the concept of waste does not exist. “WASTE” is food in nature. The so-called “waste” that we plan to transform into fuel, is an essential element to keep the soil productive. Leaves, twigs and stalks, even whole fallen trees are decomposed by underground organisms, or munched on by bugs and invertebrates whose wastes (Poo) feed bacteria and fungi; which turn it into humus that can feed a next generation of plants and other organisms. If you take away this material, the soil will become less and less fertile until all you are left with is a mineral laden soil with no organic material, essentially desert soil. A process offset with more fossil based fertilizers, 2nd failure those fertilizers are good for plant growth but bad for soil health.</p>
<p>1st gen biofuels are a reversible, we can decide any time to change our minds and use corn, etc as edibles.
A similar deployment of cellulosic fuels would destroy our agricultural soils, without any chance to repair them afterwards. We will have mined the soil – a process that is largely irreversible except with 2-3 times more fertilizer than we currently use. When the soil is exhausted, even fertilizers are useless. Just ask a soil scientist…</p>
<p>Fuels from plant based oils; Hempoil is same energy density of biodiesel which is 20% inferior to jet fuel which means the plane will have to consume 20% more per mile.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-21T19:31:09.997Z
2022-01-21T19:31:09.997Z
LazyReader
<p>A Facebook post containing an image from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1328285517592675/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">@TheGretaEffect</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1328285517592675/permalink/1363385557416004/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">actual post can be found here</a> mentions the development of a plane build entirely of hemp products and fueled with hemp oil.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/7si0m.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/7si0m.jpg" alt="Facebook image" /></a></p>
<p>I was thinking that in this day and age where more emphasis is on net zero carbon emissions, would this be net zero or net negative in CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions?</p>
<p>Hemp has excellent carbon <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-carbon-sequestration" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sequestration</a> when grown according to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/respondents-additional-inputs/European%2520Industrial%2520Hemp%2520Association%2520(EIHA).pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one article I found</a> from the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One hectare of industrial hemp can absorb 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. Hemp's rapid growth makes it one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available, more efficient than agro-forestry.</p>
</blockquote>

<climate-change><co2><emissions>
Does use of hemp oil for transport fuel produce a net positive CO2e?
Chris Rogers
# Does use of hemp oil for transport fuel produce a net positive CO2e?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-01-19)

A Facebook post containing an image from [@TheGretaEffect](https://www.facebook.com/groups/1328285517592675/) and [actual post can be found here](https://www.facebook.com/groups/1328285517592675/permalink/1363385557416004/) mentions the development of a plane build entirely of hemp products and fueled with hemp oil.

[![Facebook image](https://i.sstatic.net/7si0m.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/7si0m.jpg)

I was thinking that in this day and age where more emphasis is on net zero carbon emissions, would this be net zero or net negative in CO2e emissions?

Hemp has excellent carbon [sequestration](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-carbon-sequestration) when grown according to [one article I found](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/respondents-additional-inputs/European%2520Industrial%2520Hemp%2520Association%2520(EIHA).pdf) from the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA).

> One hectare of industrial hemp can absorb 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. Hemp's rapid growth makes it one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available, more efficient than agro-forestry.

**Tags:** climate-change, co2, emissions


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-01-20. Score: 2

Agricultural sectors are under pressure from food production.
Population growth, climate change, desertification, water scarcity, soil destroyed by chemicals, monocultures, ...etc. will increase that pressure.

That's why I don't think it's a good idea to buy your mobility with an enormous amount of area.

Hemp as a construction material has been known for a long time and in the replacement of e.g. aluminum then certainly is useful. Its properties as a dampening and insulating material are also outstanding. It has long been possible to insulate buildings with natural fibers (& carbon storage) and replace environmentally harmful materials such as polystyrene, etc.

As a drive technology for aircraft, however, hydrogen produced from offshore wind power, for example, would certainly be the lesser CO2 evil than hemp oil.

Nevertheless, there is a way to give the fast-growing hemp a chance and a future. Vertical growing on an industrial scale is nothing else than stacking CO2 absorbing plant growth with artificial lighting. Here you can boost the sequestration of CO2 on highly productive, controlled areas by a factor of ~10,000 and use CO2 as an efficiency-enhancing fertilizer.

In a cube with a side length of 100m, up to 150,000t CO2 /y can be absorbed and thus replace ~100km² of open land area.
Of course, this also applies to other cultivated plants such as vegetables, salads,...


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-01-21. Score: 1

Burning crop residue to fly from A to B is no different than burning trees to generate electricity which is almost the same as (the time scales differ) burning coal or oil to generate electricity.

*My comment other site*

While the first generation of biofuels wreaked havoc on food markets by diverting agriculture food staples into our gas tanks. The second generation wreaked havoc on the environment, by diverting tropical nations into growing palm oils and jatropa to produce in home fuel blends by bulldozing the rainforests. The third generation of biofuels will ruin both and make matters worse. The taxpayer funded debacles of ethanol and biodiesel made from food crops did more harm than good, the hope for finding a substitute for oil had shifted to algae and cellulose. Both of which are scams……plant matter and crops have to be planted, fertilized, harvested, transported, and converted; ALL those stages use energy predominantly using fossil energy.

All plant matter uses cellulose in it’s biology, It is too early to say whether or not cellulosic ethanol can ever be produced with a net energy gain as a result – at the moment, it is impossible. We can only hope that scientists will never succeed, because what we do know for sure is that cellulosic ethanol will be an even larger threat than the first generation of biofuels.

Cellulosic ethanol is made using inedible parts of the plant…stalks, roots and leaves. It can also be made of non-edible plants, like switchgrass or stuff like wood waste, branches, tree trimmings, conifer needles, shit like that…..sounds like a good approach. However this leaves behind one crucial element; THE SOIL. In nature, the concept of waste does not exist. “WASTE” is food in nature. The so-called “waste” that we plan to transform into fuel, is an essential element to keep the soil productive. Leaves, twigs and stalks, even whole fallen trees are decomposed by underground organisms, or munched on by bugs and invertebrates whose wastes (Poo) feed bacteria and fungi; which turn it into humus that can feed a next generation of plants and other organisms. If you take away this material, the soil will become less and less fertile until all you are left with is a mineral laden soil with no organic material, essentially desert soil. A process offset with more fossil based fertilizers, 2nd failure those fertilizers are good for plant growth but bad for soil health.

1st gen biofuels are a reversible, we can decide any time to change our minds and use corn, etc as edibles.
A similar deployment of cellulosic fuels would destroy our agricultural soils, without any chance to repair them afterwards. We will have mined the soil – a process that is largely irreversible except with 2-3 times more fertilizer than we currently use. When the soil is exhausted, even fertilizers are useless. Just ask a soil scientist…

Fuels from plant based oils; Hempoil is same energy density of biodiesel which is 20% inferior to jet fuel which means the plane will have to consume 20% more per mile.


---

