A very wise decision.

Current biodiesel is not greener than current corn ethanol and/or fossil fuels when used in ICE equipped buses. The choice between feeding ourselves or our ICE vehicles is easy to make.

Future cellulosic biodiesel-ethanol-butanol may be a better interim solution 4 or 5 years down the road.

Electric buses with small onboard alternative fuel range extenders + quick charge stations (at selected bus stops) would be a much better (cleaner) solution.

One up-to-date large nuclear plant could provide enough energy for most city buses in England.

This looks like a decision made at the wrong level of management, and at the wrong time. Whether or not the current mix of biodiesel feedstocks is ultimately green is irrelevant to most of the proximate goals of the trial run that was contemplated here, that was to be conducted by a single (albiet large) fleet operator.

The goals of such a trial would be to test for reliability, fuel economy, emissions profile, ease of use, cold weather issues, etc. The goal of such a trial is not to immediately benefit the environment through the present use of a greener fuel; it is to pave the way for the ultimate adoption of a greener fuel by gathering data and setting up the groundwork.

If this complany truly believed that a biodiesel blend (or an ethanol-diesel blend, for that matter) could be made in the near future which really would be sustainable, then they should not hesitate to consume a limited quantity of biodiesel blend now, as part of a test, even if the current feedstock is not particularly eco-friendly. Otherwise you have a chicken-and-egg problem, where nobody has an incentive to develop an eco-friendly biodiesel feedstock, because nobody has put down the groundwork for widespread biodiesel consumption.

Another question is who is best able to pass judgment on a biodiesel feedstock that we expect to use in the long term. Should individual companies, in cooperation with environmental NGOs, pass judgment on these matters, and decide to refrain from certain alternative fuels because of their own convictions that they are environmentally unsound? Should national or state governments conduct their own assessments, embody the results in excise tax policy, and urge motorists to simply obey price signals, without conducting independent analysis? This is a more open ended question, the answer to which I will not ventue right now.

NBK you hit the nail right on the head
To build refiners and make bio diesel out of non food stocks will take time and technology in the mean time work out a lot of the bugs. Additives to be able to use in the winter months. What type of filters is needed? How long it lasts. Don’t think because it is not the friendliest today that it has no value.

Before dismissing this idea without any testing, consider this alternative to bio-diesel or ethanol: Refined pyrolysis oil (with trade names like BioOil or bio-oil), with appropriate additives like bio-ethanol, vaporized on-demand by catalytic carburetors.

Refined bio-oil can already fuel slow diesels (compression-ignition engines) or turbines for generators, although it's a lousy fuel for responsive diesels (which need high cetane-number fuels).

In the 1930s, numerous patents were filed, and some vehicles were manufactured, capable of decomposing kerosene on demand in catalytic carburetors. The resulting vapor fuelled spark-ignition engines, relatively cleanly, efficiently, and without knocking.

To this day, lots of inventors offer vaporized-fuel systems. However, hot fuel vapors are dangerous, and engines run too hot. Perhaps we can adequately address these problems today. (Likely though, we won't bother.)

But in the 1930s, the automotive economy was dominated by Standard Oil and GM, and they (along with mining interests) had more than enough political/economic clout to get their way - in particular about how to raise octane levels in gasoline (to prevent knocking or dieseling). Ethanol was the safe octane enhancer, but GM & Standard Oil saw economic advantages to tetra-ethyl lead (TEL). Sure, TEL (plus "detergents") significantly reduced valve-seat wear in old-time cars, but TEL also poisoned catalytic converters and people.

We’ve finally stopped poisoning ourselves with TEL (average blood lead levels fell 78% between 1978 and 1991). But naturally we still accept that gasoline (mostly straight-chain hydrocarbons) and diesel (with lots of ring or aromatic hydrocarbons) are highly toxic and carcinogenic.

In contrast, bio-oil is a mix of water-soluble, bio-degradable yet renewable compounds. I think it may be very worthwhile to humanity to devise bio-oil refining, additive, and on-demand processing (for example, for range-extending generators of electric cars).

World-wide, small farmers could get bio-oil processed from their crop residues (in contrast to biofuels from the edible products of corporate plantations), to enhance their incomes and power their irrigation pumps. Bio-oil production also produces solid char as a byproduct that's also a very useful fuel and excellent permanent fertilizer.

OTOH, if our rich and powerful oil companies can successfully keep bio-oil products off the market, then we can continue to empower potentates in Russia, Venezuela, and the Persian Gulf. We might also be among those smart enough to get even richer from the near-at-hand wars, depressions, and famines due to peak oil and global warming. So what we really need is to find a way to get another Bush elected president.

1st generation -> Vegetable oil methyl/ethylation: Made from food crops, produces compatible but different fuels compared to geo-oil

2nd generation-> gasification, pyrolysis and TDP, uses any organic matter, produces hydrocarbon oil of identical, similar or even superior quality to geo-oil.

Anon:

Problem with Second Gen, though, is cost. It's much cheaper to produce biodiesel from oilseed. Until those costs come down, there won't be much development. I've followed TDP and other such tech for years and nothing's come of it yet. Biodiesel has its flaws, but it's also available right now.

A missed opportunity to educate the public that there are highly efficient biofuels that save greenhouse gas emissions and that alleviate poverty. You have to import them from the South, not make them in the North, where biofuel production makes no sense.

It seems like some environmentalists succeed in deceiving important players, though, by not telling them that the world is bigger than England. Luckily, Virgin Fuels has reacted and said that NX's decision is not very smart; instead, they are looking abroad.

Algae need not compete for food crop space.

They made the right decision IMHO. There are better technologies for converting (waste) lipids into hydrocarbon fuels completely miscible with existing fuel supplies, including Neste Oil's NExBTL, CHOREN, ConocoPhillips-Tyson Foods and, yes, TDP. TDP did hype their process beyond its potential, but it is still viable technology. Just way more expensive than $15/bbl.

Converting waste oil to hydrocarbons makes a lot more sense than producing biodiesel (where biodiesel refers to fatty acid methanol ester). The product is far superior and the production process is cheaper and more efficient (no need for purifying the feed lipid, no need for methanol or catalyst).

Biodiesel will remain the toy of DIYers...

Engineer? What tests or research have you carried out on biofuels? DIY? maybe you are confusing WVO with true biofuels? Don't believe everything you read in the eco media! They tend to throw the baby out with the bath water just to get news that sells!

Here's an example of how jatropha based biodiesel can be used to help relieve poverty in semi arid parts of Africa:

See attached power point presentation ( www.citris-uc.org/system/ files/Eirik-Jarl-Trondsen-Kibera.ppt ) and following:

A UN report: http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=5271&catid=510&typeid=24&subMenuId=0

http://www.nyumbani.org/

http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1104.cfm