Keith, would the numbers look similar with Biodiesel? "90% reduction" gets thrown around a lot it seems, both for BD use and for low-sulphur fossil D + filters use... I wonder how the cost of fueling with biodiesel over the life-cycle of the bus would compare to the $9,000 one-time cost of this retrofitting (including the time value of money)... Anybody have a price for BD relative to low-sulphur fossil D in bulk in the Boston area?
Regardless of whether it makes $ sense for the Boston schools, I would imagine that EPA has an easier time earmarking these funds for physical improvements to the fleet than for subsidizing fuel (BD) purchases. Regardless, got to get that cost of BD down and/or that cost of fossil D up! :) Andrew Message: 3 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:30:09 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: On the road to cleaner air >Those numbers are rather minor, aren't they? For that much money? Why >not just use biodiesel instead? > >Keith > >http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/047/west/On_the_road_to_cleaner_air+.shtm l >Boston Globe Online / West Weekly / On the road to cleaner air >MILFORD > >Grist's comment: > >"Boston is moving to protect its students [from diesel fumes] by retrofitting school buses with new filtration systems that can eliminate 90 percent of diesel emissions. The Boston project is the largest in a New England-wide effort to clean up school buses; it is being paid for out of a $1.4 million fund created by the U.S. EPA with money won in a lawsuit against a Massachusetts waste-handling company. According to EPA estimates, the upgrades will eliminate at least 540 pounds of diesel particulate matter, 2,480 pounds of smog-causing hydrocarbons, and 17,380 pounds of carbon monoxide from the air every year." <snip>
