In a move that seems to fall somewhere between greenwashing and legitimate green progress, the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority recently announced that its Tri-Rail regional transit lines would be running 8 out of its 10 trains on a nearly pure blend of biofuels. Let’s consider the pro’s and con’s.
First of all, any press is good press, as they say. Especially when we’re talking about a public institution such as a transit authority, whose endorsement of biodiesel seems more significant and far-reaching than, say, Willie Nelson’s. Plus, the fuel is cleaner than standard diesel. It emits less carbon monoxide, fewer particulates and pollutes less overall. If biodiesel spills and soaks into the ground, it is far more benign than old fashioned diesel. And, surprisingly, biodiesel is currently 30 cents/gallon cheaper than the competition.
My main complaint here is that the biodiesel comes from palm and soy sources. This might make some sense if the palm oil is produced locally (though I’m not even sure it does), but food crops-turned fuel crops such as these have been largely condemned by the green community as unsustainable solutions which aggravate food prices across the globe.
As an aside, the SFRTA’s report mentions that Florida is one of the only places where such biofuels could be implemented, because of its temperate climate. I’m assuming they mean that this biodiesel would not function at lower temperatures, perhaps due to congealing or freezing. Perhaps one of you readers can shed light on the issue…
Via Gas 2.0, SFRTA
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Ottar, October 31, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lyrin, October 31, 2008
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/28/news/top/news01.txt
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, October 31, 2008
And, surprisingly, biodiesel is currently 30 cents/gallon cheaper than the competition.
But how does it compare in cents/mile? Biodiesel most likely does not contain the same amount of energy/gallon compare to Diesel in the same way that ethanol does not contaol the same amount of energy/gallon that gasoline does. So telling us it is 30 cents/gallon cheaper is meaningless if it requires sufficiently more biodiesel to accomplish the same amount of work.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ottar, October 31, 2008
Biodiesel is equivalent to diesel #2 in a cents/mile equation. There is a marginal decrease in the BTUs of Bio vs Dyno; however with the inefficiency of combustion engines it is negligible. In fact, with the increased lubrication of biodiesel, you are actually treating your engine better = longer lasting = better mpg in the long run. I get about 27 mpg on average in my Jeep Liberty Diesel when I use regular diesel from the pump. I have noticed a 1-2 mpg gain using biodiesel, I can't say for sure whether that is due to the fuel or due to other factors, driving style, topography, temperature, ect. But from the decrease in engine noise using Bio, I feel pretty confident that the engine is happy. Don’t forget, the diesel engine was originally designed to run on vegetable oil, it had to be “modified” so that it could accept a product produced by the oil industry.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dialtone, October 31, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andrew, November 01, 2008
Just whack windmills up like there's no tomorrow and go electric. Send the bio fuel land back to it's natural state.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Flahooler, November 03, 2008
When compared to petroleum-based fuels, biofuels are good...so should we shout them down because there might be something better five or ten years down the road? Don't wait around for something better when there's something good right in front of you.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Francis, November 03, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
OCT 31
"I highly agree with Flahooler, and in response to Andrew, the main dil..."
View all Comments