We can start by planting some of those trees where the White House stands, they will make better use of the space...

But how many barrel's worth of fuel does the 15% of the corn spent on ethanol add up to?

@seym0ur caKe: If memory serves Jimmy Carter, who introduced the nation to ethanol, had some corn growing somewhere around the White House. He also put solar panels on the roof, but Reagan took them down.

Certainly the trees can be genetically modified to produce more oil. But, that's still a lot of freakin' trees, man!!!

Why can't we go straight to atomic powered flying carpets?

and corn produces something like 15% more energy than whats put into the process. It's not even close to being the best biofuel. We should be looking toward vertigro or cellulose based production.

What i want to know (and the article doesn't say) is how they extract the fuel from the tree. Does the tree have to be cut down or does it live through the process? How efficient is the extraction process?

That's really the deal breaker. If i have to have some big diesel powered fleet of machinery to harvest my diesel, then the efficiency of that fleet pretty much determines how efficient this whole plan is.

From my non-expert reading, it looks at least interesting enough that we should be trying it. Any idea that could possibly change our fuel crisis into a renewable resource is worth whatever resources we can toss at it to see if it can work, and this looks like a good candidate.

Electric is the answer.

It might be possible (if these tree cells could be 'grown' in a huge facility. So instead of acres of land, think, miniaturized cells producing the oil, without the need to replant / plant new trees. A multistorey cell line in a say 250 hectare facility that would function like a 'powerplant'. Such facility would be quite costly though. But its a way to go when you really have nothiing left.

@bpatten: We used the verb "tapped." Just like you get syrup, it can be retapped over the years.

@sned: Generated how?

On the plus side, it can be "tapped" so the tree does not die.

On the minus side, it has not been successfully transplanted to grow outside of its native tropical region.

...so do we cut down 200,000,000 acres of rainforest in order to keep running diesel-based vehicles?

@bpatten - I'd say by the fact that the article says that the trees last for 90 seasons that they extract the oil without killing the tree. Perhaps, like Maple Syrup.

Yes, It doesn't explicitly say that but for the trees to last 90 seasons - they'd have to not die.

My question is - what climate zones will these trees grow in and how many I need for my car to run on? I'll buy a few acres of land if that's enough for my car. 8^)

-Nyle

Two real challenges with the numbers:
1. It compares fuel output with oil output.
2. Comparing one acre of this stuff to all of Saudi Arabia causes the whole post to come across as sarcasm. How does the output compare to that of corn-based ethanol and other biofuels?

I've got an idea...

How 'bout we make an honest attempt to get our lips off of the ol' Oil Pipe before Foreign Oil decides to serve up the "money shot".

I got a better idea: Give everyone on welfare a cycle-generator that is hooked to the grid. They are to ride for atleast 2 hours a day (5 days/week). If they don't contribute 10hrs/week, they don't get a check. If they contribute more, they get a bonus.

Earn your free ride! Save the trees!

182.5 million acres of diesel trees would make for one hell of a forest fire.

We need to look at alternatives to fuel not plants that can create it. But hell if the plants can really do that we should start planting them now!

Great idea. Then vehicle fuel can be as outrageously expensive as real maple syrup. $10 dollars a pint for the hi-grade stuff.

Also if that's a rain forest tree you probably can't plant it where it gets too cold or frosty.

How about algae?
I saw this yesterday on CNN... they were saying "Kertz said he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans."*. So you do a whole lot better than we are currently doing with Corn and poor Mexicans would be able to afford their food. Ok, this is not the complete solution but it's a far better start than Ethanol and most forms of getting bio-diesel. If you can convert acres of land used for corn to algae oil production you would get 950,000,000,000 gallons of oil that can be used as bio diesel every year! And anyone who'se grown up near a lake can tell you algae reproduces like crazy. Now, there's bound to be problems with this solution but think about the problems we had to overcome just to use fossil fuels, all we need is a little motivation (like, say, if we paid as much for gas as the europeans do).

*[www.cnn.com]

@SigmundTheSeaMonster: Damn. Now that's an idea I could get on board with. Give that man a fishstick!

damn, tap that tree quick...screw Saudi Arabia...we don't need their oil bad enough to miss out on this opportunity.

I've know this for a LONG time. Duh, Giz.

At the very least we can plant these trees in our yards and use them to power our homes...

@SigmundTheSeaMonster: Hey, fossil fuel free is fossil fuel free... It's a start!

@SigmundTheSeaMonster: Wow, you make me want to go on welfare. You can keep in shape, help the environment and get paid.

Oh, and nobody called dibs on DIESEL TREES for a band name.

Dibs!

Virgin and Google are going to transform mars into an oil-tree-growing planet. I'm there

and what about sugar ethanol? isn't that what brazil uses? we have land in the u.s. that can grow sugar. also plenty of it imported since bush just about put u.s. sugar farmers practically out of business for it. can sugar and corn ethanol be combined?

@mhlaxp: Those solar panels weren't taken down by Regan on a whim. They were removed because of various issues including leaking on the roof.

The biggest irony of all, for some people anyway, is that the Bush, the current one, has had three sets of solar panels installed.

On another note, gasoline from trees is a cool idea, but I suspect like nearly all of these alternative energy sources it wont work as well as advertised. Not that they shouldn't be working on it, because anything that can alleviate the current demand on oil is a good thing.

oh oh... seens to me that Brazil will get invaded, like that bullshit that happens in Iraq. No problem, as long Bush still remembers that the capital of Brazil is Buenos Aires.

@sned:
And as we all know, electricity is made by magic and gets to our house the same way.
We need to advance the development of batteries. That is the key!

@MaWeiTao: So, you're saying that Regan thought it was a better idea (and more cost effective) to disassemble and remove the solar panels, and patch the roof... as opposed to just repairing the roof and getting free energy. Hmmm.

I'd hate to see the guy with the Ferrari who doesn't drive his car for 6 months using this fuel. Smoke... fun!

Hell, ethanol is not a very good solution. It's causing corn prices to go up which is increasing the prices of milk, eggs, and other groceries. We should start using cane sugar like Brazil does.

cant they genetically alter the plants to grow faster, say ... 10x faster :) then we can grow em chop em and replant ... tada

Here's my take:

We probably shouldn't go the biofuel route (corn, trees or plants) as it will take up more area in relation as our energy use increases.

I would propose Hydroelectricity replacing our current powerplants, in-turn charging electric cars.

The highest percentage of all alternative energy sources belongs to Hydro Electricity (60% of all alt.energy Source= [www.ren21.net]), so it's not really a secret how well it works. Also 70% of the earth is covered in water, and we barely use it.

99% of Norway electricity comes from Hydroelectricity. Any electric car used in Norway is free of emissions, all the way down to it's powerplant.

We're about to have electric cars that can take on typical petrol fueled cars:
Lotus' ZapX, 350mile range, top spead of 155mph, takes $3.50 to charge up the car at the house. It's $60k.
It uses Altairnano Safe batteries with cyclelife of 20,000 deepcharges. With a special charging station it will charge in 10min.. otherwise it's 30min.
[www.zapworld.com]

Also checkout the Tesla
[www.teslamotors.com]

Surely we should be looking for more nature-friendly fuels, not looking for ways to make more diesel.

@phantam: I'd be interested to see what sort of nutrient depletion you would see with that.

What ever happened to putting giant solar panels in orbit?

@Arelar: Yeah, but the shipping costs are Out Of This World...

Maybe it's just me, but I think oxygen is extremely more important in the grand scheme of things than diesel fuel. Cutting down that many trees to provide fuel is going to have catastrophic results in the short/long term.

Curious what percentage of vehicle using gasoline couldn't use this bio-diesel? And how expensive/feasible a conversion kit would be for those vehicles.

As for ethanol, it uses more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of corn ethanol, is not nearly as efficient. Plus figure in the subsidies and the rising prices of using corn for fuel instead of food...Ethanol is just bad in every way.

@snowtires: You don't cut down the trees to get the fuel, you tap them (or "bung" them, in the parlance of our times). They don't kill trees to make syrup, you know.

Hemp still looks like the best option, but the U.S. wants to keep it illegal.

THIS looks like the best option. Of course, these days, you can make a fortune identifying the sets of genes that enable DIESEL to be produced. Forget bioluminescence.

It's worth remembering that it takes 7 gallons of crude to create 1 gallon of diesel. So all the number need to effectivly cut down by a factor of 7. Does seem a lot more feasible, non?

what carbon offsets? You could import oil from mars, if you still burn it, it's putting carbon in the air. The only thing you are offsetting is the sulfur. since biodiesel has a low to no sulfur content unlike most natural diesel. but i could always be wrong.

@kevininstereo: you obviously haven't read Wired's article on Zap:

[www.wired.com]

That Zap X car is never going to happen...