Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Are those UCSC Biodiesel Buses really running on Biodiesel?
The University of California, Santa Cruz, has been claiming that it runs all campus buses on biodiesel, yet is unable to provide any evidence of this long-standing claim. Is it engaged in "Greenwashing"?
For several years, the University of California, Santa Cruz has been claiming that all buses and diesel machinery operated by the University have been fueled with biodiesel. However, the university has been unable to provide this reporter with the name of a biodiesel source after numerous requests. None of the local biodiesel suppliers I contacted are doing any business with the university, and a number of confidential sources report that the fleet is entirely fueled by fossil fuel diesel, in spite of the ‘fueled by biodiesel’ stickers on the backs of many fleet buses. Neither the Fleet Manager nor the chair of TAPS (Transportation and Parking Services) would answer any questions, but referred all inquiries to Liz Irwin, Public Information Officer for the university, who has yet to answer my information requests.
Biodiesel is a diesel fuel replacement made from vegetable oils or waste grease. The other key ingredient is methanol or ethanol. The final product is less goopy and viscous than pure vegetable oil (which can also be used in a warmed-up diesel engine) and is cleaner burning than diesel fuel. It is currently manufactured to a standardized technical grade, and can be used in a blend with diesel fuel or by itself.
The Diesel engine was invented by Rudolph Diesel (1858-1913), and was designed to run on vegetable oils. He patented his invention on February 27, 1982. Diesel engines have no spark plugs, but operate on the principle of thermal compression of the fuel, which then causes the fuel to ignite. This phenomenon is also responsible for ‘engine knock’ in gasoline engines. The first demonstration of this engine utilized peanut oil as the fuel. Another biofuel, ethanol, has a very high octane number and can serve as a replacement fuel in gasoline engines (A high-octane fuel can stand more compression before igniting than a low-octane fuel).
Fossil diesel fuel contains a wide variety of hydrocarbon compounds as well as sulfur, and the combustion products (sulfur, particulates, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon residues) can cause health problems. New California regulations specify that diesel fuel must have ultra-low levels of sulfur, but this has caused some engine problems due to low lubricity; biodiesel mediates this problem and as a result it is a popular additive to diesel fuels. Biodiesel will soon be sold at a number of local gas stations, and Pajaro Valley School district is moving to use biodiesel to fuel their school buses, as reported by Michael Thomas in the August 22 edition of the Mid-County Post.
The emerging markets in biofuels were shut down in the early twentieth century as petroleum exploration and production boomed and fossil fuel prices decreased. Prohibition helped to ensure that ‘farm ethanol’ would not challenge gasoline sales, and the invention of tetra-ethyl lead as an additive to gasoline eliminated the need to mix ethanol with gasoline to increase the octane number and prevent engine knock. The oil embargoes and crises of the 1970’s caused many countries to re-initiate biofuel programs. Germany in particular has made major investments in this area, and they were the first to produce biodiesel in large quantities. Currently about 5% of diesel fuel in Germany is biodiesel (usually blended in with diesel fuel), and Germany may mandate a 5.75% biodiesel content in all diesel fuels.
Biofuels are now undergoing a resurgence for a number of reasons, including their beneficial effect on climate change (which is due to the net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions). Plants produce the raw materials for biofuel production from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so there can be no net increase in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of using biofuels – but only if sustainable agriculture practices are used. Biofuels provide a way to utilize waste grease from restaurants, which can be difficult to dispose of in landfills. Farmers are also viewing biofuels as a new emerging market for their agricultural products.
Using biodiesel in University buses and machinery would have a number of environmental benefits, including reducing pollution and mitigating climate change. The fledgling local biodisel industry would also be greatly aided if they knew they had a guaranteed market for their product.
If the University is claiming to be using biodiesel while actually using imported diesel, then it raises the questions of the veracity of University statements as well as their commitment to the local economy and to healthy environmental practices. The University has repeatedly claimed that it is a great boon to local businesses, and a switch to biodiesel would certainly benefit local businesses, assuming a local contract was worked out.
The University has repeatedly claimed that it is using a biodiesel blend in all campus buses. The May 08 version of UCSC Currents Online contains an article by Jennifer McNulty, “UCSC Students Lead the Greening of the University”, which states that “Diesel-powered campus shuttles run on a fuel that's 20 percent biodiesel.” The university has been claiming to be using biodiesel since at least July of 2004, as evidenced by the July 12, 2004 article in UCSC Currents Online, “July 12, 2004, UCSC Fleet Services Honored for Environmental Efforts”, as well as by the minutes from the Jan 14, 2004 Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting: “Mr. Scott said that TAPS currently runs all of the campus heavy-duty fleet on biodiesel fuel. It does not require any vehicle modifications.”
The inability of the University to name a biodiesel supplier, as well as the reports of my confidential sources, indicate that this is not true. Was biodiesel ever used by the University, and if so, when was its use ended?
This does raise the question: Is the University ‘greening’ itself, or is it ‘greenwashing’ itself?
Biodiesel is a diesel fuel replacement made from vegetable oils or waste grease. The other key ingredient is methanol or ethanol. The final product is less goopy and viscous than pure vegetable oil (which can also be used in a warmed-up diesel engine) and is cleaner burning than diesel fuel. It is currently manufactured to a standardized technical grade, and can be used in a blend with diesel fuel or by itself.
The Diesel engine was invented by Rudolph Diesel (1858-1913), and was designed to run on vegetable oils. He patented his invention on February 27, 1982. Diesel engines have no spark plugs, but operate on the principle of thermal compression of the fuel, which then causes the fuel to ignite. This phenomenon is also responsible for ‘engine knock’ in gasoline engines. The first demonstration of this engine utilized peanut oil as the fuel. Another biofuel, ethanol, has a very high octane number and can serve as a replacement fuel in gasoline engines (A high-octane fuel can stand more compression before igniting than a low-octane fuel).
Fossil diesel fuel contains a wide variety of hydrocarbon compounds as well as sulfur, and the combustion products (sulfur, particulates, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon residues) can cause health problems. New California regulations specify that diesel fuel must have ultra-low levels of sulfur, but this has caused some engine problems due to low lubricity; biodiesel mediates this problem and as a result it is a popular additive to diesel fuels. Biodiesel will soon be sold at a number of local gas stations, and Pajaro Valley School district is moving to use biodiesel to fuel their school buses, as reported by Michael Thomas in the August 22 edition of the Mid-County Post.
The emerging markets in biofuels were shut down in the early twentieth century as petroleum exploration and production boomed and fossil fuel prices decreased. Prohibition helped to ensure that ‘farm ethanol’ would not challenge gasoline sales, and the invention of tetra-ethyl lead as an additive to gasoline eliminated the need to mix ethanol with gasoline to increase the octane number and prevent engine knock. The oil embargoes and crises of the 1970’s caused many countries to re-initiate biofuel programs. Germany in particular has made major investments in this area, and they were the first to produce biodiesel in large quantities. Currently about 5% of diesel fuel in Germany is biodiesel (usually blended in with diesel fuel), and Germany may mandate a 5.75% biodiesel content in all diesel fuels.
Biofuels are now undergoing a resurgence for a number of reasons, including their beneficial effect on climate change (which is due to the net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions). Plants produce the raw materials for biofuel production from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so there can be no net increase in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of using biofuels – but only if sustainable agriculture practices are used. Biofuels provide a way to utilize waste grease from restaurants, which can be difficult to dispose of in landfills. Farmers are also viewing biofuels as a new emerging market for their agricultural products.
Using biodiesel in University buses and machinery would have a number of environmental benefits, including reducing pollution and mitigating climate change. The fledgling local biodisel industry would also be greatly aided if they knew they had a guaranteed market for their product.
If the University is claiming to be using biodiesel while actually using imported diesel, then it raises the questions of the veracity of University statements as well as their commitment to the local economy and to healthy environmental practices. The University has repeatedly claimed that it is a great boon to local businesses, and a switch to biodiesel would certainly benefit local businesses, assuming a local contract was worked out.
The University has repeatedly claimed that it is using a biodiesel blend in all campus buses. The May 08 version of UCSC Currents Online contains an article by Jennifer McNulty, “UCSC Students Lead the Greening of the University”, which states that “Diesel-powered campus shuttles run on a fuel that's 20 percent biodiesel.” The university has been claiming to be using biodiesel since at least July of 2004, as evidenced by the July 12, 2004 article in UCSC Currents Online, “July 12, 2004, UCSC Fleet Services Honored for Environmental Efforts”, as well as by the minutes from the Jan 14, 2004 Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting: “Mr. Scott said that TAPS currently runs all of the campus heavy-duty fleet on biodiesel fuel. It does not require any vehicle modifications.”
The inability of the University to name a biodiesel supplier, as well as the reports of my confidential sources, indicate that this is not true. Was biodiesel ever used by the University, and if so, when was its use ended?
This does raise the question: Is the University ‘greening’ itself, or is it ‘greenwashing’ itself?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
i am told the diesel engine was invented to run on an excess of hemp seed oil the inventor had access to. hemp seed oil is excellent for biodisel and one aspect of the overall hemp energy scheme, which is being trounced since 1937 here.
your date is transposed i guess thats supposed to be patented 1892?
b
your date is transposed i guess thats supposed to be patented 1892?
b
Have you been in close vicinity of the buses? If so, have you gotten a whiff? That should give you a huge tip-off of what's fueling them. Generally, biodiesel has a very faint scent. It smells a lot like when you open a bottle of vegetable oil and gently heat it. It doesn't have a strong odor. Running on recycled vegetable oil tends to give off the scent of whatever was initially cooked in the oil. Diesel, on the other hand, has a distinctive, nasty, noxious odor that triggers coughs in many. It also looks sooty as it is realeased from the exhaust pipe; biodiesel is clear. A mixture of biodiesel and petrodiesel means a slightly less noxious odor, but it is still there.
As for their sources, it's possible they could be making their own. It involves little work, but it isn't rocket science to make.
As for their sources, it's possible they could be making their own. It involves little work, but it isn't rocket science to make.
Thanks for that typo correction; 1892 was indeed the correct date. Editor needed!
As far as the smell test goes, the buses smell to me like straight diesel, and they produce that characteristic black particulate cloud (though the University is supposed to be running a 20% biodiesel - 80% diesel blend, so that might smell anyway).
I contemplated taking a little sample from the fleet fuel pump for analysis, but that seemed to be a rather illegal approach. What's odd is that the Fleet Office initially claimed they were running biodiesel, but when I asked who the supplier was they immediately said I had to talk to Liz Irwin in public information (and I still haven't heard back from her despite numerous follow-up requests).
As far as the smell test goes, the buses smell to me like straight diesel, and they produce that characteristic black particulate cloud (though the University is supposed to be running a 20% biodiesel - 80% diesel blend, so that might smell anyway).
I contemplated taking a little sample from the fleet fuel pump for analysis, but that seemed to be a rather illegal approach. What's odd is that the Fleet Office initially claimed they were running biodiesel, but when I asked who the supplier was they immediately said I had to talk to Liz Irwin in public information (and I still haven't heard back from her despite numerous follow-up requests).
Your article failed to list any information concerning the cost of switching to biodiesel also not listed is the accessibility of the fuel. Please list some stats.
If the University's "biodiesel" is only a 20% biodiesel and 80% petro diesel mix, that really isn't "biodiesel."
At the end of the article, a university official is quoted as saying that the whole fleet "runs on biodiesel." Unless a significant percentage of their fuel mix is actually biodiesel, then to say that the line "runs on biodiesel" is misleading. The author is correct to point this out.
In reference to the last commenter, the author is not bound to provide cost analysis as part of the article. However, I know that right now, biodiesel is about the same price as petro diesel at the retail pump. This is not difficult information to figure out, as is finding suppliers who sell biodiesel wholesale.
Mmmmm.... I wonder why "hippies" can figure out how to run buses on waste vegetable oil and yet a campus full of Ph.D.s can't even figure out what legitimately constitutes "biodiesel."
At the end of the article, a university official is quoted as saying that the whole fleet "runs on biodiesel." Unless a significant percentage of their fuel mix is actually biodiesel, then to say that the line "runs on biodiesel" is misleading. The author is correct to point this out.
In reference to the last commenter, the author is not bound to provide cost analysis as part of the article. However, I know that right now, biodiesel is about the same price as petro diesel at the retail pump. This is not difficult information to figure out, as is finding suppliers who sell biodiesel wholesale.
Mmmmm.... I wonder why "hippies" can figure out how to run buses on waste vegetable oil and yet a campus full of Ph.D.s can't even figure out what legitimately constitutes "biodiesel."
Ike, nicely written article... thanks!
One technical correction:
You use the word "ignition" in various grammatical forms, to describe what routinely happens in diesel and gasoline engines.
While it's true that ignition is the reaction that applies to the type of behavior internal combustion engines (ICEs) are designed to operate under, the phenomenon that occurs occasionally is "detonation" and there's a distinction to be made about it.
Detonation occurs in a diesel engine when it's cold and when it is "lugged" - asked to do too much while in a low RPM/low power regime.
Detonation means the the fuel explodes, rather than smoothly burning, thus causing the pinging, or knocking, sound coming from the engine. Diesels are built heavily and can withstand this for short periods of time. Self-ignition (compression ignition) is the behavior you want to see in a diesel under normal running conditions.
Gasoline engnes are spark-ignited. Normally, a smooth flame-front propagates from the the spark plug outward, building pressure and pushing the piston "south"... over and over again. Detonation will occur in a gasoline engine for some of the same reasons it happens in a diesel engine... but the phenomenon is the same. There's no smoothly-propagating flame front, but instead, and explosion occurs, beating up the piston head and, by extension, the pistons bearings.
In gasoline, octane rating is a measure of a gasoline blend's resistance to detonation. The higher the octane rating, the more resistant the fuel is to detonation. Higher-performance engines, which usually compress the fuel more before igniting it, need higher ocatane gasoline to perform well.
Indeed, Ethanol can be added to gasoline to boost its octane rating. E85, the current 85% blend of Ethanol in a 15% percent mix of gasoline, DOES have a much higher octane rating, but a much LOWER energy content.
So, a gallon of E85 gets you only 60-70% the distance of gasoline. Older cars cannot run for long on E85 (don't believe the online Ethanol conversion kit vendors!) before their fuel system components fail.
You would think that because E85 has a higher octane rating, you could compress the fuel more and get more "bang for the buck" out of a flexible-fuel vehicle (FFVs that GM, Ford and Chrysler are touting) making them nearly as efficient as gasoline-only vehicles; but, sadly, not so. The reason is that the engines have to be designed for the lowest octane rating of the any of the possble fuel belnd that the vehicle may "see," and that would be gasoline.
By the way, if I can be of assistance on these subjects, please let me know. I have a little program on KUSP 88.9 in Santa Cruz, called Life in the Fast Lane, that runs Tuesday and Thursdays at 7:33am and 5:33pm. It's a short, 2 minute commentary on alternative energy, fuels, and vehicle technology that might lead to us kicking our petro-jones.
All the best!
One technical correction:
You use the word "ignition" in various grammatical forms, to describe what routinely happens in diesel and gasoline engines.
While it's true that ignition is the reaction that applies to the type of behavior internal combustion engines (ICEs) are designed to operate under, the phenomenon that occurs occasionally is "detonation" and there's a distinction to be made about it.
Detonation occurs in a diesel engine when it's cold and when it is "lugged" - asked to do too much while in a low RPM/low power regime.
Detonation means the the fuel explodes, rather than smoothly burning, thus causing the pinging, or knocking, sound coming from the engine. Diesels are built heavily and can withstand this for short periods of time. Self-ignition (compression ignition) is the behavior you want to see in a diesel under normal running conditions.
Gasoline engnes are spark-ignited. Normally, a smooth flame-front propagates from the the spark plug outward, building pressure and pushing the piston "south"... over and over again. Detonation will occur in a gasoline engine for some of the same reasons it happens in a diesel engine... but the phenomenon is the same. There's no smoothly-propagating flame front, but instead, and explosion occurs, beating up the piston head and, by extension, the pistons bearings.
In gasoline, octane rating is a measure of a gasoline blend's resistance to detonation. The higher the octane rating, the more resistant the fuel is to detonation. Higher-performance engines, which usually compress the fuel more before igniting it, need higher ocatane gasoline to perform well.
Indeed, Ethanol can be added to gasoline to boost its octane rating. E85, the current 85% blend of Ethanol in a 15% percent mix of gasoline, DOES have a much higher octane rating, but a much LOWER energy content.
So, a gallon of E85 gets you only 60-70% the distance of gasoline. Older cars cannot run for long on E85 (don't believe the online Ethanol conversion kit vendors!) before their fuel system components fail.
You would think that because E85 has a higher octane rating, you could compress the fuel more and get more "bang for the buck" out of a flexible-fuel vehicle (FFVs that GM, Ford and Chrysler are touting) making them nearly as efficient as gasoline-only vehicles; but, sadly, not so. The reason is that the engines have to be designed for the lowest octane rating of the any of the possble fuel belnd that the vehicle may "see," and that would be gasoline.
By the way, if I can be of assistance on these subjects, please let me know. I have a little program on KUSP 88.9 in Santa Cruz, called Life in the Fast Lane, that runs Tuesday and Thursdays at 7:33am and 5:33pm. It's a short, 2 minute commentary on alternative energy, fuels, and vehicle technology that might lead to us kicking our petro-jones.
All the best!
Once the school year starts, see about publishing this article in the on-campus papers. Pressure from students and employees on such a thing can make a huge difference.
From the University PIO:
"1. UCSC has not used Falcon Fuels since June 04.
2. There was one load of biodiesel purchased in June 05. Biodiesel has not been purchased since.
3. B-20 was purchased previously."
Well, that's that. As far as listed costs go, 100% biodiesel is averaging $3.17/ gallon, (See http://www.baybiodiesel.com/news.htm) and I'm sure the University could get a discount if they signed a long-term contract with a local supplier. Why haven't they done this? Beats me. Maybe they should remove those 'fueled by biodiesel' stickers from their buses?
Regarding the energy efficiency of ethanol and biodiesel vs. diesel and gasoline, there has been a lot of disinformation on this topic, some of which is well refuted at http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html, as well as http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5760/506
"Pure" gasoline is actually a poor, low-octane fuel that needs additives to increase the octane number and avoid pinging. The oil industry first used tetraethyl lead for this purpose, than benzene derivatives, then MTBE, and is now grudgingly accepting ethanol as the additive. Why does ethanol work for this purpose? Ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH) has an oxygen atom onboard, and when blended with gasoline (made up of short-chain hydrocarbons like CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3) allows for a more even burning fuel. A decent discussion of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline.
Ethanol contains less energy per volume because it already has some oxygen mixed in it, thus it is a far cleaner burning fuel (try igniting a spoonful of Everclear (96% ethanol) side by side with a SMALL spoonful of gasoline - you will see a clear blue flame and a dirty orange flame, respectively). Keep in mind that automobile and engine design also matters a lot in terms of efficiency. Compare a gallon of gas in a huge SUV (<10 mpg) to a gallon of gas in a highly efficient car (60 mpg is entirely possible); that's a 600% difference in efficiency. (compare that the 60% energy content of ethano vs. gasoline) Getting the most out of E85 or E100 fuel does mean re-designing the engine for high compression so it can take advantage of the high-octane fuel; Brazil uses a lot of ethanol and sells such cars (This is why buying high-octane supreme unleaded is a big waste of money if you don't have a high-compression engine in your car).
There is a debate in the 'biodiesel community" over the relative merits of B5, B20 and B100. Keep in mind that the methanol generally used to make biodiesel from vegetable oil is also a fossil fuel product! (It is possible to use ethanol instead of methanol, but the chemistry is trickier; any water will screw up the reaction). Also, now that California has mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, why not go the extra step and mandate B5 across the state? There might be some production problems, but that's what Germany is doing, so why not California as well? Insisting on 'pure biodiesel' seems a little silly to me.
Biodiesel looks something like this: CH3-(C=O)-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3. That "CH3" in front is from methanol. It is made by 'cracking' vegetable oil; pure vegetable oil can be run in a warm diesel engine, but not in a cold one. Different oils produce different biodiesels; a lighter oil produces a lighter biodiesel (think canola vs. palm oil).
Diesel, by the way, is generally the dirtiest fuel available and varies widely in quality. It is actually a main feedstock for gasoline production in refineries. Big cuts in diesel and gasoline demand as a result of increased use of biofuels in California will not make the oil companies very happy, but will be good for everyone else.
"1. UCSC has not used Falcon Fuels since June 04.
2. There was one load of biodiesel purchased in June 05. Biodiesel has not been purchased since.
3. B-20 was purchased previously."
Well, that's that. As far as listed costs go, 100% biodiesel is averaging $3.17/ gallon, (See http://www.baybiodiesel.com/news.htm) and I'm sure the University could get a discount if they signed a long-term contract with a local supplier. Why haven't they done this? Beats me. Maybe they should remove those 'fueled by biodiesel' stickers from their buses?
Regarding the energy efficiency of ethanol and biodiesel vs. diesel and gasoline, there has been a lot of disinformation on this topic, some of which is well refuted at http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html, as well as http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5760/506
"Pure" gasoline is actually a poor, low-octane fuel that needs additives to increase the octane number and avoid pinging. The oil industry first used tetraethyl lead for this purpose, than benzene derivatives, then MTBE, and is now grudgingly accepting ethanol as the additive. Why does ethanol work for this purpose? Ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH) has an oxygen atom onboard, and when blended with gasoline (made up of short-chain hydrocarbons like CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3) allows for a more even burning fuel. A decent discussion of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline.
Ethanol contains less energy per volume because it already has some oxygen mixed in it, thus it is a far cleaner burning fuel (try igniting a spoonful of Everclear (96% ethanol) side by side with a SMALL spoonful of gasoline - you will see a clear blue flame and a dirty orange flame, respectively). Keep in mind that automobile and engine design also matters a lot in terms of efficiency. Compare a gallon of gas in a huge SUV (<10 mpg) to a gallon of gas in a highly efficient car (60 mpg is entirely possible); that's a 600% difference in efficiency. (compare that the 60% energy content of ethano vs. gasoline) Getting the most out of E85 or E100 fuel does mean re-designing the engine for high compression so it can take advantage of the high-octane fuel; Brazil uses a lot of ethanol and sells such cars (This is why buying high-octane supreme unleaded is a big waste of money if you don't have a high-compression engine in your car).
There is a debate in the 'biodiesel community" over the relative merits of B5, B20 and B100. Keep in mind that the methanol generally used to make biodiesel from vegetable oil is also a fossil fuel product! (It is possible to use ethanol instead of methanol, but the chemistry is trickier; any water will screw up the reaction). Also, now that California has mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, why not go the extra step and mandate B5 across the state? There might be some production problems, but that's what Germany is doing, so why not California as well? Insisting on 'pure biodiesel' seems a little silly to me.
Biodiesel looks something like this: CH3-(C=O)-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3. That "CH3" in front is from methanol. It is made by 'cracking' vegetable oil; pure vegetable oil can be run in a warm diesel engine, but not in a cold one. Different oils produce different biodiesels; a lighter oil produces a lighter biodiesel (think canola vs. palm oil).
Diesel, by the way, is generally the dirtiest fuel available and varies widely in quality. It is actually a main feedstock for gasoline production in refineries. Big cuts in diesel and gasoline demand as a result of increased use of biofuels in California will not make the oil companies very happy, but will be good for everyone else.
Thanks for pointing this out. One thing though, Rudolph Diesel did not design the Diesel to run on Veg oil. It turned out, after much trial and error, that veg had the most reliable viscosity and other properties of the time (late 1800's) compared to petrolium. You see, back then petrolium products had different grades with different properties. The refinement standards were not yet established. It was kind of like different herb. You've got Humboldt outdoor, which produces a philosopher-like, energetic high. Then, there's the SC mountain organo outdoor, which gives you a couch sitting euphoria. ETC, ETC. The petrolium oils were different depending on where they came from, and Diesel had a difficult time overcoming the variables. I see it quoted all the time that the Diesel was "designed to run on veg", which I think is our way of trying to claim the Diesel as an eco-friendly ICE. The first place I saw that quoted was in Tickell's Frier to Fuel Tank book. Rudolph didn't care what fuel his engine ran off of, he basically went broke to try to get it to work at all. A good read on the developement of the Diesel without any hippy hyperbole is his biography by Cummins. My truck just turned to 150,000 miles on pure SC hobebrew!!! Thanks Saturn, Crow's Nest, Thai House, and all the other local restaraunts that made this possible!
Actually, I heard that truckers were prohibited from buying biodiesel, even when it is cheaper than regular diesel. This came up when a lot of truckers were earning less than they had to pay for fuel during a price spike. Does anyone know the reason for this - is it a pollution rule, or a safety rule because biodiesel that isn't made correctly can gum up an engine, or something like that?
"It was kind of like different herb. You've got Humboldt outdoor, which produces a philosopher-like, energetic high. Then, there's the SC mountain organo outdoor, which gives you a couch sitting euphoria. ETC, ETC."
sounds like the first one is a sativa, and the second is an indica.
sounds like the first one is a sativa, and the second is an indica.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network