Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I appreciate zero emission vehicles from a local air quality perspective.

i agree, zero emission is a good idea. and bio-diesel wont be doing it. i wonder if there is something else that would do it. like maybe trolley buses? or expanded skytrain? or some other technologies?

nahh, lets waste money on bio-diesel instead. thatll help with everything!

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

thatd be great! nothing wrong with doing that. but we know thats not true.

Probably a good thing if you look at Tidewater Renewables which is tanking

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/LCFS.TO/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i agree, zero emission is a good idea. and bio-diesel wont be doing it. i wonder if there is something else that would do it. like maybe trolley buses? or expanded skytrain? or some other technologies?

nahh, lets waste money on bio-diesel instead. thatll help with everything!

Good news, TransLink aren't wasting money on biodiesel. They're switching to renewable diesel.

"Renewable diesel uses the same raw materials as biodiesel, but its production process and properties are different. Biodiesel is manufactured by transesterification of vegetable oils and mineral fats. Renewable diesel is produced using a hydrogenation process like the process used for desulphurization of petroleum diesel. Because of this, existing petroleum refineries can be converted for renewable diesel. Renewable diesel is chemically similar compared to conventional diesel and can be transported and used like conventional diesel while biodiesel requires blending for use in diesel engines." [source]

It will help a lot in immediately reducing pollution for a very slight increase in cost of fuel. It reduces carbon intensity by at least 75% when compared with petroleum diesel. And it produces lower levels of fine particulates, less hydrocarbons, lower levels of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, and less nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reduced levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). It offers a drop-in solution that the existing diesel buses can use right away. Engines that are older and less advanced gain more distinct emissions-cutting benefits from using renewable diesel.

It's intended as a 'meanwhile' move while TransLink continues to roll out all those other much, much more expensive long-term zero carbon solutions you approve of - specifically the conversion to battery electric buses, and the addition of more SkyTrain.

[jollyburger]

I know it's the same for any input but it'll be interesting to see how that market develops. I guess if anything seriously shifted in the market they could quickly revert back to regular diesel?

But with renewable diesel production swelling in scale at such a record pace, food and fuel markets are quickly becoming so tightly connected that a sustained rise in demand for renewable diesel in California could soon trigger shortages of edible oil on the other side of the world.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...ite-fresh-food-fight-maguire-2022-11-08/

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's intended as a 'meanwhile' move while TransLink continues to roll out all those other much, much more expensive long-term zero carbon solutions you approve of - specifically the conversion to battery electric buses, and the addition of more SkyTrain.

Exactly. I thought that was pretty obvious from the blurb I quoted...

[chowhou]

I don't know any of the numbers but I'm personally skeptical of biodiesel conversion if it increases the running cost of the transit network. Yes, biodiesel does have a lower carbon footprint on paper than traditional diesel, but if that 5-7% additional running cost reduces the speed that transit can be improved and expanded and car driving remains the dominant form of transportation instead the environmental impact might just be a wash or even worse a net negative.

I'm pretty sure if you crunched the numbers, if we could run busses on coal but converted every car driver to a transit user we'd decimate carbon emissions.

I'd be really sad if this program kneecapped an inherently environmentally progressive solution (bus transit) through greenwashing.

(On the other hand if biodiesel conversion is relatively non-impactful, power to them)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't know any of the numbers but I'm personally skeptical of biodiesel conversion if it increases the running cost of the transit network. Yes, biodiesel does have a lower carbon footprint on paper than traditional diesel, but if that 5-7% additional running cost reduces the speed that transit can be improved and expanded and car driving remains the dominant form of transportation instead the environmental impact might just be a wash or even worse a net negative.

I'm pretty sure if you crunched the numbers, if we could run busses on coal but converted every car driver to a transit user we'd decimate carbon emissions.

I'd be really sad if this program kneecapped an inherently environmentally progressive solution (bus transit) through greenwashing.

(On the other hand if biodiesel conversion is relatively non-impactful, power to them)

It's renewable diesel - not biodiesel. They've said it's to replace regular diesel and they're using it "as a transition fuel". Also they're "electrifying as fast as we can" - that's the end goal and they're not going to get there overnight. This is something they can do now.

From CanSpice: "they said renewable diesel has a 2-7% cost premium per litre. But it apparently also comes with reduced maintenance, so maybe it's a wash?"

You can read this back on pg 6.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's renewable diesel - not biodiesel. They've said it's to replace regular diesel and they're using it "as a transition fuel". Also they're "electrifying as fast as we can" - that's the end goal and they're not going to get there overnight. This is something they can do now.

From CanSpice: "they said renewable diesel has a 2-7% cost premium per litre. But it apparently also comes with reduced maintenance, so maybe it's a wash?"

You can read this back on pg 6.

My mistake I didn't realise biodiesel and renewable diesel are two distinct things, but that doesn't take away from my point.

From the 2023 Translink business plan Translink expects to use about 32.17 million litres of diesel per year at an approximate cost of $1.66/L. That's a cost of $53MM per year, which if it increases by 7% would be an additional cost of $3.7M which could mean buying 4 fewer busses a year, or pushing out infrastructure improvements like expanding the trolley bus lines, or might just be offset by fare increases making transit less affordable and less appealing.

And from my reading, renewable diesel is just that—diesel, so I doubt there's really reduced maintenance (it would certainly be reduced maintenance vs biodiesel).

I know we want our transit network to be *perfect* and 100% clean and is our darling, but it's far greener to move people out of cars than it is to convert a very low carbon/passenger mode of transportation to an extremely low carbon/passenger mode of transportation (in the current day and age it's pretty much impossible to have zero carbon footprint). Electrifying "as fast as we can" absolutely should not take priority over reducing personal single occupancy vehicle use. As I said before if you care about the environment it's far better to have the busses run on coal with 5% personal vehicle mode share than have the busses run 100% on electricity but 80% of people still drive an ICE car.

I'll just add these two slides from Translink's own internal report:





A traditional diesel bus requires only around 7 passengers to be more efficient than gas vehicles.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I know we want our transit network to be *perfect* and 100% clean and is our darling, but it's far greener to move people out of cars than it is to convert a very low carbon/passenger mode of transportation to an extremely low carbon/passenger mode of transportation (in the current day and age it's pretty much impossible to have zero carbon footprint). Electrifying "as fast as we can" absolutely should not take priority over reducing personal single occupancy vehicle use. As I said before if you care about the environment it's far better to have the busses run on coal with 5% personal vehicle mode share than have the busses run 100% on electricity but 80% of people still drive an ICE car.

Well we both agree about the need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned - we just see different ways of getting there. I don't think any one way is the 'be all and end all' and it's going to take a lot of steps to do it. Swapping out regular diesel for renewable diesel is just one step.

Over the years I have sent many many redrawn bus maps to TransLink as I think some of the routes are really messed up and not very useful. They're not a nimble start-up so any changes have been small and really slow to happen.

Btw their operating budget is separate from their infrastructure budget (and have very different timelines).

[Migrant_Coconut]

So long as one budget doesn't cannibalize the other, by all means. The concern is that it will.

[jollyburger]

Was there any information in those slides in the makeup of feedstock for the renewable diesel?

I found a November 2021 slide and it said this:

Made via hydrogenation of vegetable oils using normal
refinery processes
✓ Not bio-diesel
✓ Can be used in current buses
▪ Production cost is $0.26 to $0.40 per liter more than
petroleum diesel, but
✓ Up to $0.05/L lower carbon tax
✓ Up to $0.31/L carbon credit
✓ Net cost should be on par with diesel
▪ Available in Vancouver at wholesale
▪ Could be made available to fleets
▪ Sourced from Singapore

https://metrovancouver.org/boards/IntergovernmentFinance/FIC_2021-Nov-10_PPT.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

My mistake I didn't realise biodiesel and renewable diesel are two distinct things, but that doesn't take away from my point.

From the 2023 Translink business plan Translink expects to use about 32.17 million litres of diesel per year at an approximate cost of $1.66/L. That's a cost of $53MM per year, which if it increases by 7% would be an additional cost of $3.7M which could mean buying 4 fewer busses a year, or pushing out infrastructure improvements like expanding the trolley bus lines, or might just be offset by fare increases making transit less affordable and less appealing.

And from my reading, renewable diesel is just that—diesel, so I doubt there's really reduced maintenance (it would certainly be reduced maintenance vs biodiesel).

As Sheba notes, TransLink wouldn't buy more buses if they saved any money by sticking with dirtier fossil diesel, (and they have no current plans to expand trolley lines). $3.7m (if 7% really is the additional cost) wouldn't allow fares to be any cheaper. They ran an accumulated surplus of $5.2m in 2023, on a total operating budget of $2.2bn. $3.7m extra cost is effectively a rounding error.

And my limited reading discovered renewable diesel isn't diesel, it just works in diesel engines. See the post above, and here's another quote. "Renewable diesel’s clean burning properties reduce particulate production by up to 50%, helping improve air quality. ... This reduced particulate production also helps improve engine cleanliness and extend the life of the machine." [source]

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As Sheba notes, TransLink wouldn't buy more buses if they saved any money by sticking with dirtier fossil diesel, (and they have no current plans to expand trolley lines). $3.7m (if 7% really is the additional cost) wouldn't allow fares to be any cheaper. They ran an accumulated surplus of $5.2m in 2023, on a total operating budget of $2.2bn. $3.7m extra cost is effectively a rounding error.

And my limited reading discovered renewable diesel isn't diesel, it just works in diesel engines. See the post above, and here's another quote. "Renewable diesel’s clean burning properties reduce particulate production by up to 50%, helping improve air quality. ... This reduced particulate production also helps improve engine cleanliness and extend the life of the machine." [source]

If $3.7MM was such a rounding error, how come we don't just increase the budget by $3.7MM and buy an additional 4 busses a year, and increase the budget by $3.7MM a year and hire a couple dozen more transit police, and increase the budget by $3.7MM a year and buy one or two properties nearby Skytrain stations yearly?

I feel like people here think transit dollars are just requested from the government and freely given because how could you ever turn down transit, but Translink is in a bit of a funding crisis right now with bus service being cut in Vancouver to provide additional service in Surrey and there's only going to be a finite amount of money that can be squeezed out of the province and feds right now.

If renewable diesel was really the fuel cost vs maintenance savings wash that's claimed, I would wonder why the entire trucking industry hasn't switched to renewable diesel.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If $3.7MM was such a rounding error, how come we don't just increase the budget by $3.7MM and buy an additional 4 busses a year, and increase the budget by $3.7MM a year and hire a couple dozen more transit police, and increase the budget by $3.7MM a year and buy one or two properties nearby Skytrain stations yearly?

I feel like people here think transit dollars are just requested from the government and freely given because how could you ever turn down transit, but Translink is in a bit of a funding crisis right now with bus service being cut in Vancouver to provide additional service in Surrey and there's only going to be a finite amount of money that can be squeezed out of the province and feds right now.

If renewable diesel was really the fuel cost vs maintenance savings wash that's claimed, I would wonder why the entire trucking industry hasn't switched to renewable diesel.

Read the business plan (which includes a financial statement of operations), and see if you can answer your own question.

And nobody has said it will save money - it will cost about the same. It saves emissions. As a public agency with a requirement to meet a zero carbon future, switching to renewable diesel is a good interim move. Private firms are switching. For example, Lafarge concrete trucks in Vancouver. UPS bought 46 million gallons in 2015, and had switched to using renewable diesel in 12% of its entire US fleet in 2017. Since 2015, all City of San Francisco fleet HDVs have used Renewable Diesel, including its 600+ vehicle transit fleet.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Read the business plan (which includes a financial statement of operations), and see if you can answer your own question.

And nobody has said it will save money - it will cost about the same. It saves emissions. As a public agency with a requirement to meet a zero carbon future, switching to renewable diesel is a good interim move. Private firms are switching. For example, Lafarge concrete trucks in Vancouver. UPS bought 46 million gallons in 2015, and had switched to using renewable diesel in 12% of its entire US fleet in 2017. Since 2015, all City of San Francisco fleet HDVs have used Renewable Diesel, including its 600+ vehicle transit fleet.

Yes now you're getting it, there's only so much money to go around. The point you're missing is that a mandate for zero carbon, while noble, shouldn't come at the cost of improving transit to spur reduction in personal vehicle carbon emission which would save far more in emissions. If it doesn't, that's good! But if it does, that's bad.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Yes now you're getting it, there's only so much money to go around. The point you're missing is that a mandate for zero carbon, while noble, shouldn't come at the cost of improving transit to spur reduction in personal vehicle carbon emission which would save far more in emissions. If it doesn't, that's good! But if it does, that's bad.

The point you're missing is that even if it costs slightly more, (which isn't at all clear), it appears the management of TransLink, and the TransLink Board think it's worthwhile. But somehow, you seem to think you know better.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The point you're missing is that even if it costs slightly more, (which isn't at all clear), it appears the management of TransLink, and the TransLink Board think it's worthwhile. But somehow, you seem to think you know better.

Yes because as both you and I have already stated Translink has a mandate to reduce emissions within the transit system. By 2030 there is a requirement imposed on Translink to reduce emissions by 45%. Not to reduce the region's emissions though, just Translink's (even though they only make up 1% of the region's emissions while other vehicle traffic makes up 35%).

[jollyburger]

FWIW it might mean nothing and just be a US thing. And I guess you also get into farmer lobbies/biodiesel subsidies etc.

But surging commodity and labor costs have boosted the price tag to build facilities when proposed government mandates to blend biofuels into diesel and gasoline have failed to meet industry expectations. That’s putting at risk billions of dollars in expansion plans that were expected to fuel a sevenfold increase in American green diesel production by 2025 from 2020 levels.

“Processors continue to be frustrated by delays, which include shortages of skilled construction labor, the availability of steel and unexpected cost increases brought on by supply chain issues,” said John Jansen, vice president of marketing at United Soybean Board, responsible for promoting American soybeans.

Global biofuel investments totaled $5.9 billion last year, the second-highest amount in more than a decade, according to BloombergNEF. Renewable diesel attracted 93% of last year’s funding. In 2021, spending totaled $7.7 billion.
Billions of dollars have also poured into oilseeds crushing. Still, some 30% of the additional 2.2 million bushels a day of soybean-processing capacity won’t be operating by 2026, industry consultant Gordon Denny said this week in a presentation to US soy buyers in Indonesia.

Building a soybean processing plant and edible oil refinery now costs about 20% to 25% more than two years ago, according to Denny.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.’s Chief Executive Officer Juan Luciano said last month that the expansion in renewable diesel will be bumpy, and added that not all plants announced “will come on the exact year.”

Processing soybeans to make the cooking oil used in renewable diesel has become less profitable. That’s because sky-high prices of everything from soy to canola oil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine curbed demand. To make matters worse, US government mandates proposed in December fell far short of industry expectations.

Cargill put its plan to build a soybean processing plant in Hayti, Missouri “on pause due to many shifting market dynamics,” a company spokesperson said Wednesday. The facility was expected to be the biggest to come online by 2026.

Building plans were put on hold after the Minneapolis-based trader bought family-owned soybean processor Owensboro Grain Company in January, reducing its need for a costly new facility, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the details aren’t public.

Exxon canceled its contract with GCE on May 19, according to a regulatory filing. The Texas oil giant said in an emailed statement that the move stems from “continued delays and mismanagement,” a claim the California-based company rejects. GCE, which is contesting Exxon’s move, has said its project is delayed due to issues including material shortages.

Some are still positive. Bunge Ltd.’s Chief Financial Officer John Neppl said in a February interview that government mandates were more a reflection of what the Environmental Protection Agency thought the feedstock availability would be, rather than actual demand from the energy industry.

“The US farmer will find a way to grow soybeans,” Neppl said. “We will find a way to get the feedstocks to those to those plants.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ts-spark-pullback?embedded-checkout=true

[whatnext]

So, what happened here? Someone tried to make their getaway on Skytrain with a rack of stolen coats?

https://twitter.com/SarcasticallyAJ/status/1739875073216188695

[jollyburger]

But is that 2-7% number that they are quoting include or exclude the carbon offsets credits?

Current makeup of the fleet at Surrey Transit Centre:

STC has 161 CNG vehicles, 27 hybrids, and 63 diesel vehicles, amounting to a total of 251 conventional units as of September 7th, 2023.

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Co..._Centre&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

They seem to be mostly early 2000s buses.