At Biodiesel Show: Freeway Plantations, Chinese Tallow and Algae Anger

At the biodiesel confab in San Francisco, experts discuss ways to grow fuel in the desert and Ben Franklin's contribution to alt fuels.

This week, the country's leading thinkers on biodiesel are in San Francisco for the 2009 National Biodiesel Conference and Expo (see Biofuel Maker to Switch From Deep-Fat Fryers to Jatropha). Here are some of the highlights so far:

One of the more cost effective places to grow biodiesel in the country could be the side of the road, according to Dallas Hanks from Utah State University. He heads up a project called Freeways to Fuel to study the feasibility of planting crops in the 30-foot wide shoulder next to roads.

The key is that the land would essentially be free. In the U.S. there are approximately 10 million acres lining 4 million miles of road that could be planted with oil seed crops, he said. There's another 1 million acres alongside the 140,000 miles of railroad right-of-ways.

"Right now, we mow it," he said. Utah alone spends about $300 a year per mile to keep lawns and open space around its roads clean, he said. Growing an oil crop would at least generate revenue at the same time.

The nation's 20,000 airports can probably spare about 2 million acres and the military-which has 29 million acres under its control-could probably spare 8 million acres.

"The state owns the land. The military owns its land and they pay people to take care of it," he said. "We can probably produce $2 a gallon biodiesel on this type of system."

The problem? Soils on the side of the road tend to get quite compact: Furrows that get cut in roadside soil tend to stay there, as if carved in Play-Doh. Transportation engineers also worry about harvesting and planting ruining the structural integrity of their roads. In a limited experiment in Utah in 2007 and 2008, the plants yielded very little oil. Utah, however, is one of the driest states in the nation. Universities in the Midwest and Northeast are going to conduct similar experiments where yields could be higher.

Looking for a novel feedstock? Castor could be the answer, according to Dick Auld from Texas Tech. The castor plant is drought tolerant, salt tolerant, grows on marginal land, probably amenable to genetic modification and is quite oily. The plant could yield 63 to 210 gallons of oil an acre-that's low compared to some crops but it would grown on marginal lands, thereby dropping the cost of production. Auld speculated that the Texas Panhandle, the dry 80,000 square miles toward the top of the state, could turn into Castor country.

"We believe we could be the most economical source of biological feedstocks," he said.

It's also not a food crop. The plant, originally from the tropics, produces the highly toxic ricin.

But if there's a feedstock on everyone's lips, it's the Chinese Tallow tree, according to Courtney McColgan, an associate at Draper, Fisher Jurvetson.

Ben Franklin is credited with bringing the tree to the continent when the U.S. was still a set of colonies owned by Britain. Since then, it's become a pesky, invasive species in the South. Some experts say it could produce several hundred gallons of feedstock per acre.

Algae was criticized by some attendees for requiring too much water, she said. An expert at the show said algae could still be four to five years away.

And one more feedstock to think about: Gumweed, an unattractive desert plant currently under study at the University of Nevada at Reno.  

Comments [4]

  • b cole 02/3/09 7:14 AM

    “Algae was criticized by some attendees for requiring too much water, she said. An expert at the show said algae could still be four to five years away.”

    Absolute non-sense.  Algae oil production is here now.  75% of the water is recyclable.

    Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes co2.  Algae is the savior for the biodiesel industry. The farmers are finally realizing that their plan to grow energy crops is not sustainable.  Thank God. 

    Reply
  • b cole 02/3/09 7:19 AM

    Absolute nonsense.  Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes co2. The water used is about 75% recyclable.  The farmers are starting to realize that their plan to grow energy crops for fuel has been flawed. They can not grow enough soy, canola, palm or camelina to be self-sustainable.  Due to the high cost of feedstock and availability most biodiesel plants are only at 20% of capacity.  That is why over 50% of all buidiesel plants in the US are shut down. 

    Reply
  • David Doty 02/3/09 12:03 PM

    We?ve looked carefully at a number of studies on algae oil and concluded all indicate fuel from algae will cost in the range of $20 to $40/gal. One of the best recent studies was that by Paul Frymier et al, Dept of Chemical Engineering, Univ. of Tenn. The mean of their cost estimates for hydrogen from algae is about $50/kg. A reasonable extrapolation is that oil from algae might cost 30% less per unit energy, or about $35/gal. A recent article in C&E News says all algae companies agree the costs are still an order of magnitude away from being competitive. It?s amazing that so many impractical ideas continue to get far more funding and positive press than they deserve.  There?s a lot more sound economic analysis on all the alternatives here http://dotyenergy.com/Markets/MarketsOverview.htm .

    There is a better solution. Scientists have recently shown that off-peak wind energy can be used to recycle CO2 into ethanol, gasoline, and jet fuel at up to 60% efficiency. These wind-generated carbon-neutral fuels, dubbed WindFuels, will compete when oil is above $40 to $90/bbl. Recycling CO2 into transportation fuels using off-peak renewable energy addresses both the oil and the climate challenges, and it completely stabilizes the power grid, no matter how much wind and solar are added. Wind will not continue to grow quickly without a solid market for its off-peak power and the ability to stabilize the grid by putting the off-peak energy into liquid fuels. Detailed scientific, engineering, and economics analyses are available at http://windfuels.com/ .

    Annual WindFuels production per land area in good wind regions will exceed biofuels production density in fertile farming areas by a factor of 4 to 30. The cost of producing ethanol and gasoline from CO2 and wind energy will depend mostly on the cost of the off-peak wind energy. WindFuels will be cheaper than biofuels in most cases.

    Reply
  • Kimo Sutton 02/9/09 3:25 PM

    CO2 is the problem. If next to a cellulosic ethanol plant is a vertical algae biogenerator. In an acre of algae growth in a two story building the CO2 is absorbed and oxygen let off. The algae can be sold, used in the feedstock or made into biodiesel. The cost for carbon will be enough to pay for the algae.

    Reply
.