Reader comments
UDOT hopeful about biodiesel

I am amzed no one is commenting about this story.
This is one of the greatest stories going on in the state. I hope the keep up the research

Planting oil-producing plants in the freeway medians to make bio-diesel. Great idea! But, like too many other UDOT fiascos, very poorly implemented.

In the worst case, the I-15 SynCrete debacle, it started with the test strip on the I-215 belt route. It performed fantastically and lasted for years without a problem. So, because the test did so well, UDOT decides to change the formula (using a different aggregate than on the test strip) and starts laying it for many miles on I-15 before finding out their new formulation was no good. Ooops! There goes a few million down the drain.

Now, though the idea is terrific, they start seeding without knowing the correct depth to lay the seed.

Isn't there anyone with some judicious foresight at that agency? Or, even more importantly, isn't there anyone in state government with enough managerial insight to see a pattern of incompetence in that agency and do something more about it?

One of the biggest objections to biofuels has been the Food vs. Fuel argument. Imagine how many acres of roadside right-of-way would be available for biofuel production! Planting hardy oilseeds or grasses for cellulosic ethanol (when it becomes commercial) could potentially solve a large chunk of America's oil dependence without using land formerly used for food production. And could produce profits for governmental units with jurisdiction for those highways. Money that could be used to maintain highways without further raising taxes. The project may have started badly, but holds enough promise to pursue.

I back this idea whole-heartedly. I think that people needing to do community service can help with the planting and harvesting. They are already on the freeways doing cleanup. As far as Bio-diesel, our fleet of big trucks already run on 100% bio-diesel. The product is available right now! Governor Huntsman, you should mandate that your state fleet run a 10% blend immediately. The product is available and can be delivered by next week. Research the advantages and go for it!

We'd better not tell the railroad people about this. They might start planting their own diesel, and straw, and bamboo & stuff. Then where'd we be?

It seems a good idea until you figure out that unless somebody actually males profit out of it, it is simply a waste of taxpayers money. This thing should be implemented as a state sponsored pilot trial from which gather economical data, then call to public bidding into taking charge of the operation of the whole system of "road side bioenergy crops" including financial soundness as a bidding criteria.

Otherwise, is just a futile exercise.

When one plants an annual crop with the expectation of producing a good yeild we call that farming. There aren't any ten foot wide twenty mile long farms. The $50,000 needs some professional farmer input. We are increasingly populated with educated people exibiting excellent vocabulary and yet clueless about the process they can pontificate so eloquently. On the power point it all worked great, and to the grant reviewers this is all that matters.
Explaining the limitations of roadside farming would be too time consuming. The liability of mixing farm machinery and highway traffic in close proximity is ordinary sufficient to deter roadside farming.
Congratulations, you got the $50,000. Who can argue with success.

It seems that deep rooted drought tolerant grasses would be a better choice for Utah. Miscanthus or mixed grasses. These can be co-burned with coal, or made into pellets for heating. Great idea though. I have been planning on approaching the highway dept. here in Illinois. We have plenty of rainfall.

Secondary benefits are:

1. Safe cushion for out of control drivers.
2. Wildlife feed.
3. Less mowing.