Colas Rail UK Embraces Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil

[Adlington]

The original article reads like a press release (we are the best... we are the first....) but the story is worth posting, if only just for the record

Colas Rail UK has recently conducted trials using hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) as an alternative to diesel fuel in their locomotives. This move aims to significantly reduce carbon emissions, with HVO offering a claimed 90 per cent reduction in comparison to traditional diesel fuel.

HVO is a renewable diesel fuel derived from vegetable oils or animal fats. It undergoes a process called hydrotreatment, which removes impurities and enhances its combustion properties. The result is a fuel that closely resembles fossil diesel but offers significant environmental advantages. HVO is a cleaner-burning fuel with lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced particulate matter, and lower levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

BTW, HVO is not a renewable fuel. Once it's burned is gone forever.

 

[59CosG95]

The original article reads like a press release (we are the best... we are the first....) but the story is worth posting, if only just for the record

BTW, HVO is not a renewable fuel. Once it's burned is gone forever.

The sources of the fuel, however (veg oils and animal fats) are.

 

[Richard Scott]

The original article reads like a press release (we are the best... we are the first....) but the story is worth posting, if only just for the record

BTW, HVO is not a renewable fuel. Once it's burned is gone forever.

That's not what renewable means. It's an energy source that is replaced at same rate or a greater rate than it's being used.

 

[themiller]

I believe that many people use renewable when they mean low-carbon. HVO isn’t what can be classed as low-carbon whereas nuclear is low-carbon but isn’t renwable.

 

[eldomtom2]

Stopgap. There will be little desire for wasting biofuels on trains when they could be electrified.

 

[D365]

Stopgap. There will be little desire for wasting biofuels on trains when they could be electrified.

The HSTs were a stopgap!

It's going to be a long, long time before FOCs are rid of diesel. Electrification or not.

 

[eldomtom2]

The HSTs were a stopgap!

It's going to be a long, long time before FOCs are rid of diesel. Electrification or not.

We shall see. Electric trucks could seriously change the public image of diesel freight trains...

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I believe that many people use renewable when they mean low-carbon. HVO isn’t what can be classed as low-carbon whereas nuclear is low-carbon but isn’t renwable.

So something that absorbs the carbon it releases isn't renewable? In who's world?

Anything plant based is renewable, plus nucealr is too broad here. Nuclear fission may not be renewable, although using plutonium is using waste, but Nuclear fusion, the thing being worked on big time is the meaning of renewable and better than anything in use today

 

[Richard Scott]

So something that absorbs the carbon it releases isn't renewable? In who's world?

Anything plant based is renewable, plus nucealr is too broad here. Nuclear fission may not be renewable, although using plutonium is using waste, but Nuclear fusion, the thing being worked on big time is the meaning of renewable and better than anything in use today

Could we please stop talking about 'Carbon'? It's Carbon Dioxide being referred to.
As for fusion afraid that isn't happening any time soon. I'd be willing to be no-one on this forum will ever witness widespread use of fusion to generate electricity on Earth.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Could we please stop talking about 'Carbon'? It's Carbon Dioxide being referred to.
As for fusion afraid that isn't happening any time soon. I'd be willing to be no-one on this forum will ever witness widespread use of fusion to generate electricity on Earth.

Then you're willing to ignore the fact it's already been positive with regards to the energy it's produced being positive already?

Cardon or carbon dioxide, potato potato tbh, the plant has absorbed it before being burnt, it's carbon neutral no matter what, it's a plant....

 

[norbitonflyer]

The locomotive used in the trial - 56051 - was a participant in the Severn Valley Railway's "Spring Diesel Bash" a few weeks ago - and consquently the only Class 56 I have had for haulage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2023 ==

Could we please stop talking about 'Carbon'? It's Carbon Dioxide being referred to.

The fuel is carbon, or a compound of carbon. Carbon dioxide is the combustion product. Renewable means that in some way (usually photosynthesis) the carbon will be quickly removed from the atmosphere by breaking down the CO2 - the carbon becoming cellulose (or some other chemical compound that isn't a greenhouse gas, like limestone).

Fossil fuels don't qualify because it takes millions of years for CO2 to become fuel, via vegetation, peat, and coal/oil. Biofuels do qualify because the carbon cycle is much shorter (the fuel was living plants very recently, and CO2 not much olnger ago)

 

[eldomtom2]

Fossil fuels don't qualify because it takes millions of years for CO2 to become fuel, via vegetation, peat, and coal/oil. Biofuels do qualify because the carbon cycle is much shorter (the fuel was living plants very recently, and CO2 not much olnger ago)

It's quite a bit more complicated than that (primarily because growing biofuels requires land that could be used in ways that better absorbs carbon) and so biofuels are controversial.

 

[Richard Scott]

Then you're willing to ignore the fact it's already been positive with regards to the energy it's produced being positive already?

You talking about fusion if so it's in very small quantities and scaling it up is nigh on impossible at the moment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2023 ==

The fuel is carbon, or a compound of carbon. Carbon dioxide is the combustion product. Renewable means that in some way (usually photosynthesis) the carbon will be quickly removed from the atmosphere by breaking down the CO2 - the carbon becoming cellulose (or some other chemical compound that isn't a greenhouse gas, like limestone).

Fossil fuels don't qualify because it takes millions of years for CO2 to become fuel, via vegetation, peat, and coal/oil. Biofuels do qualify because the carbon cycle is much shorter (the fuel was living plants very recently, and CO2 not much olnger ago)

Totally aware of all that but people talk about producing carbon when they mean Carbon Dioxide emissions. I do have a scientific background and have a good understanding of all of that but talking about carbon emissions is a nonsense when the mean Carbon Dioxide.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It's quite a bit more complicated than that (primarily because growing biofuels requires land that could be used in ways that better absorbs carbon) and so biofuels are controversial.

Biofuels are indeed controversial for the reasons you give, but they are "renewable" because the carbon cycle takes place over a short period (essentially the lifespan of the plant)

 

[Nym]

Biofuels are indeed controversial for the reasons you give, but they are "renewable" because the carbon cycle takes place over a short period (essentially the lifespan of the plant)

With how much diesel burned to make said fuel?
The reason it’s 90% less emissions is because making into bio fuel still burns 10% more of what it gives to be able to make it useful