Green Car Congress
About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Lexus to Unveil New Hybrid Luxury Sedan | Main | Illinois Funds E85 Fueling Stations »

Print this post

Berkeley Backs Off B100

18 March 2005

Berkeley Daily Planet. Berkeley, California, has scrapped its  two-year-old program to power its fleet of nearly 200 trucks entirely on pure biodiesel (B100).

The move, Public Works Director Renee Cardinaux said, came after consultant Randall Von Weder determined bacteria mold found in the cleaner burning fuel had clogged engine filters and fuel injection pipes.

Von Weder, of Point Richmond-based CytoCulture, said despite the city’s troubles with biodiesel, he never recommended that the city return to diesel, and said the best solution would be for the city use a 50-50 blend of biodiesel and a clean burning regular diesel.

“Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to get a biodiesel fuel recently that is consistently clean,” Cardinaux said. Presently, he added, the city has returned to using a blend of 80 percent diesel and 20 percent biodiesel.

For next year, Cardinaux has proposed switching the city’s fleet to ultra-low sulfur diesel, a move he said would save the city $160,000 on fuel cost as compared to 100 percent biodiesel.

Since Berkeley became the first city to go 100 percent biodiesel in 2003, two cities, Telluride, Colo. and Coconut Creek, Fla. have followed suit.

March 18, 2005 in Biodiesel | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

Comments

If you follow Journey to Forever's biofuel list, you often see it mentioned that going to B100 causes accumulated grunge (technical word) to dislodge and block fuel filters. I wonder if this is Berkeley's problem and not the claimed "bacteria mold"?

-- John

Posted by: John Norris | March 19, 2005 at 01:31 AM

My uninformed diagnosis is accumulated grunge, bacteria due to present water in storage- and a bad run of fuel from a large midwestern processor (monoglyceride
crystallization). Only two trucks had problems? Seems like an over reaction to pull the project.

Posted by: Rob | March 19, 2005 at 08:58 PM

According to those in the know, it was less a bacteria problem and more a funds issue. The city went to a lower cost fuel. There was bacteria, due to water in the cities existing underground tanks, not the delivered fuel. The fuel supplier is being made a political scapegoat.

Posted by: Steve Spence | March 21, 2005 at 09:16 AM

Post a comment
[Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine; insults, abuse or wild diversions are not. Comments not meeting those standards will be deleted. Abuse of another commenter’s email address will result in the banning of the offender from this site. In an attempt to prevent the posting of insulting and abusive comments, this site maintains a list of prohibited words and phrases, which, unfortunately, grows with time. Including one of the prohibited words or phrases will flag the comment as “spam”, and it will be blocked.]

Green Car Congress only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834724c2b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Berkeley Backs Off B100 :

» Percocet. from Percocet.
Percocet 93-490. Fun with percocet. Percocet. Percocet shipped cod no prior. Difference in darvocet and percocet. [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 10, 2009 2:24:24 PM

Green Car Congress © 2009 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group