Fuel Economy (MPG)	Carbon (CO2)/ Greenhouse	EPA-regulated Pollutants	Infrastructure/ Resources	Vehicle Cost	Total
Biodiesel	4 – 4 – 3	4 – 5 – 4	4 – 5 – 3	5 – 4 – 5	5 – 5	60
Hybrid Biodiesel	5 – 5 – 4	4.5 – 4 – 4	5 – 4 – 4	3 – 5 – 3	3 – 1	54.5
CNG	1 – 2 – 4	5 – 2 – 5	3.5 – 1 – 4	1 – 2 – 1	1	32.5

Heavy Duty Vehicles

There were a total of four respondents with numerical values. 

                       1..................... 2 ...................  3 ...................  4 ...................  5

                    Very              Negative            Neutral             Positive              Very

                 Negative                                                                                    Positive

Infrastructure/Resources refers to the additional infrastructure that needs to be in place, and other resources required to run.  Examples include facilities, people, etc.

Summary:

The committee members who responded prefer Biodiesel with Hybrid Biodiesel second.  The Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) alternative was a distant third. 

At two previous meetings, there was much discussion among the entire committee regarding all of the pros and cons of each of these alternatives.  However, only those committee members who felt they had expert knowledge contributed to this report. 

Although we realize that CNG was generally considered to be the most popular option before we started, the Infrastructure/Resources was the prohibitive factor for it not being selected.  Infrastructure and Resources were considered to be the additional infrastructure that needs to be in place, and other resources that are required to even consider running vehicles.  This includes, for example, the compression/pumping of CNG, training of maintenance workers, and additional safety and Hazmat requirements.

The following is a compilation of the comments made by several members of the committee concerning the Biodiesel, Hybrid Biodiesel and CNG alternatives.  

Biodiesel

Fuel Economy

• Will take a hit in fuel economy purely based on lower energy content of biodiesel (130,000 BTU/gal for biodiesel and 140,000 BTU/gal for diesel)
• However, after talking with Susan Williams added lubricity of the fuel may override this impact by reducing friction in the engine
• In addition, has a higher octane number than regular diesel which may enhance its combustion characteristics leading to better fuel economy
• Overall, consider it about the same as regular diesel, maybe a little less, maybe a little bit more
• Will have a benefit based on replacing older vehicles that are less fuel efficient
• Using at least 20% Biodiesel (B20) will help with fuel economy somewhat
• Lower fuel economy would be offset by the improvements in greenhouse gas and regulated pollutants

Carbon (CO₂)/Greenhouse

• CO₂ will decrease because of fuel characteristics (relative carbon per fuel mass) if same fuel economy as diesel, especially if B20 is utilized
• Will have a carbon cycle benefit as derived from biomass sources; how much, unsure but future efforts could target B100 for significant benefit
• Will have a benefit based on replacing older vehicles that are less fuel efficient
• Biodiesel reduces these gases.

EPA-regulated Pollutants

• HC, PM will go down
• NO_x may go up, may go down overall consider a wash vs. new diesels
• CO is already low, so non-factor here
• NO_x can be reduced by introducing diesel emission fluid into the exhaust stream

Infrastructure/Resources

• I believe that Kansas is in a good position to utilize biodiesel fuels
• No significant infrastructure changes to obtaining Biodiesel
• Does not require any additional operator training or maintenance changes
• Biodiesel can also be used in existing infrastructure and fleet (going to higher blends from B2)
• If 2010 compliant engines are bought, have to consider if there is a Diesel Exhaust Fluid requirement (urea filling station)
• Enhances localized Kansas economy (biodiesel production)
• Only resources required would be additional preventative maintenance to the fuel systems when introducing Biodiesel into existing fleet vehicles.

Vehicle Cost

• Lowest vehicle costs of the three
• Same as standard buses
• The least up-front costs of the three fuel options being considered
• Will replace the largest number of antiquated vehicles

Hybrid Biodiesel

Fuel Economy

• Significant benefit with respect to fuel economy

• Will have a benefit based on replacing older vehicles that are less fuel efficient
• Best option of the three
• Various studies indicate 20-30% increase in fuel economy

Carbon (CO₂)/Greenhouse

• Because of fuel economy benefit, CO₂ emissions will decrease significantly, especially over the lifetime of the bus
• Plus will also have a carbon cycle benefit reducing even further

• Will have a benefit based on replacing older vehicles that are less fuel efficient
• Reduced by use of Biodiesel and reduced engine operation

EPA-regulated Pollutants

• Will be lower than the Biodiesel alone vehicles
• Best of the three options
• However, I do not think it will be too much lower because of already low emission standards for 2007 and 2010
• Reduced by use of Biodiesel and reduced engine operation

Infrastructure/Resources

• Additional training and resources may be required to handle the battery pack and associated components
• Other than that, similar as Biodiesel alone vehicles
• No significant infrastructure changes required
• Technician safety and technical training, additional electronic testing equipment and personnel protective gear
• Enhances localized Kansas economy (biodiesel production, maybe battery start-ups?)

Vehicle Cost

• Battery pack must be replaced (estimated cost: $35,000 every 6 years)
• 50% more costly upfront investment than the Biodiesel alone alternative

• Harder to find, more time to get to Lawrence?  Turn around on ordering
• Approximately $215,000 additional cost per unit.  These costs should decrease as production and sales of Hybrid Biodiesel increases.

CNG

Fuel Economy

• Guessing will be significantly lower because of predictions found (cost per mile NY study)
• Will require more frequent fill-ups because of low volumetric energy content – may mean more vehicles in the fleet to handle daily capacity (out of service filling up)
• Least of the three options
• Fuel economy is slightly less than diesel, approximately .5miles/gallon equivalent. 
• CNG has a lower BTU rating than diesel, which would affect the performance of vehicles on hills.

Carbon (CO₂)/Greenhouse

• Better than the other two options; however, 20% Biodiesel Hybrid may not be too dissimilar (not as good, but not too bad)
• Right now, petroleum-based fuel so no Carbon cycle benefit

• Will have a benefit based on replacing older vehicles that place more CO₂ into the atmosphere
• Somewhat higher than B20 and Hybrid Biodiesel
• CO₂ reductions are approximately 20% lower than gasoline. 

EPA-regulated Pollutants

• Better NO_x – however, comparison with 2007 diesel standards not accomplished and 2010 even lower
• Worse CO, HC emissions
• Same PM
• In comparison to older diesels being replaced, these will be better
• Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition Reduction Statistics:
• CO by 70%
• NMOG by 87%
• NO_x by 87%
• CO₂ by 20%
• Dept of Energy testing indicates that vehicles using Natural Gas produce fewer NMHC, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen. 

Infrastructure/Resources

• Requires largest upfront investment
• Requires largest amount of operator and maintenance training
• Additional safety and hazmat (?) requirements whereas biodiesel is not flammable and relatively environmental inert
• Mixed fleet/fuel concerns
• The cost of infrastructure is the major drawback to CNG.  Initial cost of a fueling station capable of fueling multiple buses would be in the $500,000 price range.  This figure is based on the cost of Kansas City, Missouri’s CNG fueling station. 
• Construction or modification of vehicle maintenance facilities to be compatible with the inside storage of CNG vehicles would be another large expense.
• Technician acceptance of the vehicles and training in the operation, repair and safety-related items is the other expense with a conversion to CNG.

Vehicle Cost

• Unsure, guess it will be higher because of niche market
• Harder to find, more time to get to Lawrence (availability)?  Turn around on ordering
• CNG upgrade (new) for a heavy-duty bus is approximately $200,000 over the cost of a standard heavy-duty bus.