Search Results

The objective of this project was to assess the effects of various blends of biodiesel on locomotive engine exhaust emissions. Systematic, credible, and carefully designed and executed locomotive fuel effect studies produce statistically significant conclusions are very scarce, and only cover a very limited number of locomotive models. Most locomotive biodiesel work has been limited to cursory demonstration programs. Of primary concern to railroads and regulators is understanding any exhaust emission associated with biodiesel use, especially NOX emissions. In this study, emissions tests were conducted on two locomotive models, a Tier 2 EMD SD70ACe and a Tier 1+ GE Dash9-44CW with two baseline fuels, conventional EPA ASTM No. 2-D S15 (commonly referred to as ultra-low sulfur diesel - ULSD) certification diesel fuel, and commercially available California Air Resource Board (CARB) ULSD fuel.

Conventional diesel fuel has been in the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications. In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new fuel formulations have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases contradictory views have surfaced. “Sustainable”, “Renewable”, and “Clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another fuel in another type such as a modern light-duty engine. This study was an attempt to compare the performance of several fuels in identical environments, using the same engine, for direct comparison.

Conventional diesel fuel has been in the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications. In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new fuel formulations have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases contradictory views have surfaced. “Sustainable”, “Renewable”, and “Clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another type such as a modern light-duty. This study was an attempt to compare the performance of several fuels in an identical environment, using the same engine, for direct comparison.

Conventional diesel fuel (1) has been on the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications.* In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new formulations, have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases, contradictory views have surfaced. “Renewable” and “clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine, such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another type, such as a modern light-duty engine.