I Am So Popular: Open Letter To Jody Denberg
Southwest Parkway Prius Drive-By Was 18-Year-Old Punk
The Last Waltz Done Live At Club Deville
Album Review: The Alchemy of Sunset's 'Gold Dissolves to Gray'
EAST Interview: Beth Hempton of The WonderCraft
While high-end luxury transportation may not always be associated with sustainability, a new limo service is rolling into town to change all that. Clean Air Limo is Austin's first eco-luxury private car service. Traditionally, most limousine companies in Central Texas use Lincoln Town Cars, which get poor gas mileage and have high emissions. Clean Air Limo uses only eco-friendly vehicles in their fleet. According to Charlotte Luongo, President of Clean Air Limo,
The vehicles in our fleet, such as the Lexus RX 400h hybrid, are at least 50% more fuel efficient than a Town Car—that's 50% fewer emissions our vehicles will be releasing into Austin's air." In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, a Lexus RX 400h hybrid that drives 50,000 miles a year will consume almost 1,000 fewer gallons of gasoline than a Lincoln Town Car.
Clean Air Limo will not only include hybrids in their fleet. They will also have vehicles that can run on alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Even their Mercedes Benz stretch limousine (shown) will run on biodiesel, making it easy for brides and business people alike to travel in an environmentally friendly style.
While other car services such as Planettran and Ozocar exist in other cities, Clean Air Limo is Austin's first eco-luxury private car service and is committed to minimizing its impact on the environment. So next time you must have the star-studded treatment of a private car service, add some sustainability to the mix and check out Clean Air Limo.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is pretty awesome as limos typically spend a great deal of time idling and waiting for their contents.
The hybrid will make a big difference in the idling department, but biodiesel when idling is worse than a normal gas engine.
The comment above isn't true. According to the EPA: "The ozone forming potential of the hydrocarbon emissions of pure biodiesel is nearly 50% less than that of petroleum fuel." So good for Clean Air Limo for running their stretch on biodiesel! And good for all the Austin gas stations carrying biodiesel now!
Ozone isn't the only bad thing that comes out of tailpipes. Think CO2 and NO2.
And biodiesel from the waste stream is a great thing, but we're running out of waste streams to exploit - pretty soon people are going to be growing crops just for biodiesel, and then you start having to meet an even tougher standard - i.e. how much energy did I have to use to grow these crops to turn into biodiesel, and how much pollution did that entail? Kind of like corn ethanol, only not quite as much of a loser.
Biodiesel sounds really attractive to people from certain backgrounds that predispose them that way. But it's not a real long-term winner.
Goddamn brides and businessmen need to learn how to take the bus. Bitches.
"Biodiesel sounds really attractive to people from certain backgrounds that predispose them that way."
Huh? What does this even mean?
And you have given no source or reasoning behind your original statement that "biodiesel when idling is worse than a normal gas engine".
Mdahmus, Ozone does *not* come out of tailpipes. Please try and get your facts straight before posting. People talking about ozone *are* thinking of NO2. Why? Because ozone forms in the atmosphere when a set of chemical reactions involving hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (e.g., NO2), and sunlight occur.
And since Austin has a lot of ozone action days, again, I say yeah for Clean Air Limo! At least they are taking proactive steps instead of sitting around wishing for solar-powered cars to appear.
runfun, you're right - I had a brain fart and meant to say particulates as opposed to NO2.
But a biodiesel fueled car that gets 15 mpg is worse for the environment than a gas car that gets 30. There's no magic halo that makes the "bio" somehow offset the "diesel".
wilceaux, the hybrid wouldn't idle (most of the time). The engine would be off. A normal gas car would be dumping a lot less particulates and more NO2 (that's IF you get pure biodiesel that was purely waste stream - unlikely in the real world).
I'll drop the coy subtlety and just lay it on the table: hippies and farmers love biodiesel - because it tends to fit their ethos - but the fact that the old sort of liberals love it doesn't give it an automatic pass when the science comes knocking. It's still diesel, and diesel's still dirty.
runfun, you're right - I had a brain fart and meant to say particulates as opposed to NO2.
But a biodiesel fueled car that gets 15 mpg is worse for the environment than a gas car that gets 30. There's no magic halo that makes the "bio" somehow offset the "diesel".
wilceaux, the hybrid wouldn't idle (most of the time). The engine would be off. A normal gas car would be dumping a lot less particulates and more NO2 (that's IF you get pure biodiesel that was purely waste stream - unlikely in the real world).
I'll drop the coy subtlety and just lay it on the table: hippies and farmers love biodiesel - because it tends to fit their ethos - but the fact that the old sort of liberals love it doesn't give it an automatic pass when the science comes knocking. It's still diesel, and diesel's still dirty.
Mdahmus, part of the reason some people like diesel cars is because they get much better gas mileage than typical gasoline cars. Therefore, a diesel would be getting 30 mpg, while its gas equivalent only got 15 mpg--not the other way around. In effect, a diesel car running on biodiesel is putting out less emissions *and* getting better gas mileage while doing it.
Oh yes--one more thing ... Biodiesel is *not* still diesel. It is a different fuel that comes from a different source. And as for your comment that "the fact that the old sort of liberals love it doesn't give it an automatic pass when science comes knocking," biodiesel did not get an automatic pass. It has been thoroughly tested by the EPA and it is the *only* alternative fuel that has passed their health effects testing requirements.
runfun, that's an incredible exaggeration - diesel cars don't get anywhere near double the mileage of non-diesel equivalents.
As for the EPA - it's been neutered by the Bush Administration. California wouldn't let most current diesels in the state for very good reason.
I come at this from the angle of having to defend hybrids like the Prius from a lot of FUD from diesel fans, by the way. I'm not a fan of normal gas cars, but one of today's diesel engines running on biodiesel is, in fact, dirtier overall than a typical non-hybrid gas engine. The only way you can claim otherwise is to ignore the issue of particulates (worse for us than ozone, by the way, but not much of a concern in this country the last few decades because we wisely didn't subsidize diesel like the Europeans did).
Mdahmus, as wilceaux pointed out above, start backing up your claims with actual studies (that is, of course, if you can, which I seriously doubt). Don't just reply to references to scientific studies by saying the EPA has "been neutered by the Bush Administration." If you want to talk about particulates, fine. Studies done by the University of Georgia and the United States Department of Energy show that biodiesel produces less particulates than petroleum fuels, so I have no idea where you are getting your faulty information from.
Either way, I am not against hybrids at all. I think they are fantastic cars, but I also don't think you should ignore other alternatives out there, including biodiesel.
runfun,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html
No mention of biodiesel advantage in particulates.
I brought up the EPA being neutered by the Bush Administration because you made an appeal to their authority to back up your claim that biodiesel can't be that dirty if they like it. Most diesel cars can't be sold in the US anymore - and that's by the regulations the Bush guys were able to tolerate.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/guiltfree_biodi_1.php
Some handwaving about pure biodiesel having less and less-damaging particulates, but does point out that blends obviously are somewhere on the spectrum between "really dirty normal diesel" and "OK". And most biodiesel being sold is blends, not B100.
Many other stories cite a reduction in particulate from diesel of 40% or so. This is not good enough - a modern non-hybrid gasoline engine can do that quite easily.
runfun,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html
No mention of biodiesel advantage in particulates.
I brought up the EPA being neutered by the Bush Administration because you made an appeal to their authority to back up your claim that biodiesel can't be that dirty if they like it. Most diesel cars can't be sold in the US anymore - and that's by the regulations the Bush guys were able to tolerate.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/guiltfree_biodi_1.php
Some handwaving about pure biodiesel having less and less-damaging particulates, but does point out that blends obviously are somewhere on the spectrum between "really dirty normal diesel" and "OK". And most biodiesel being sold is blends, not B100.
Many other stories cite a reduction in particulate from diesel of 40% or so. This is not good enough - a modern non-hybrid gasoline engine can do that quite easily.
And here's one more; which is promoting biodiesel but is at least honest:
http://www.grassolean.com/index.html?textFile=emissions
"* Gasoline produces 460 percent more Poisonous Carbon Monoxide Gas than B100
* Gasoline produces 225 percent more Toxic Volatile Organic Compounds than B100
* Gasoline produces 105 percent more Green House Gasses than B100
* Gasoline produces 15 percent less Particulate Matter than B100 (Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products)
* Gasoline produces 50 percent less Smog Producing Nitrogen oxide Gasses than B100"
Note: those are only for B100, not the much lower blends that most diesel cars can actually use without modifications.
nd here's one more; which is promoting biodiesel but is at least honest:
http://www.grassolean.com/index.html?textFile=emissions
"* Gasoline produces 460 percent more Poisonous Carbon Monoxide Gas than B100
* Gasoline produces 225 percent more Toxic Volatile Organic Compounds than B100
* Gasoline produces 105 percent more Green House Gasses than B100
* Gasoline produces 15 percent less Particulate Matter than B100 (Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products)
* Gasoline produces 50 percent less Smog Producing Nitrogen oxide Gasses than B100"
Note: those are only for B100, not the much lower blends that most diesel cars can actually use without modifications.
nd here's one more; which is promoting biodiesel but is at least honest:
http://www.grassolean.com/index.html?textFile=emissions
"* Gasoline produces 460 percent more Poisonous Carbon Monoxide Gas than B100
* Gasoline produces 225 percent more Toxic Volatile Organic Compounds than B100
* Gasoline produces 105 percent more Green House Gasses than B100
* Gasoline produces 15 percent less Particulate Matter than B100 (Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products)
* Gasoline produces 50 percent less Smog Producing Nitrogen oxide Gasses than B100"
Note: those are only for B100, not the much lower blends that most diesel cars can actually use without modifications.
Assuming those links are correct, biodiesel still sounds darn good! "Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products." Didn't know that, but I am pleased to hear it! Go biodiesel!
Less toxic than that from petroleum diesel is what they meant, as far as I can tell from context. But that's only for B100. The B2 that you buy at a normal diesel pump is still much much much much much much dirtier than gasoline.
Less toxic than that from petroleum diesel is what they meant, as far as I can tell from context. But that's only for B100. The B2 that you buy at a normal diesel pump is still much much much much much much dirtier than gasoline.
No, mdahmus, "petroleum fuels" are both diesel and gasoline, not just diesel. You cannot pick and choose what you wish the phrase would mean. Also, when people are talking about the benefits of biodiesel, they are not talking about B2.
Listen, nobody is saying biodiesel is perfect, but would I prefer all the diesel engines out there to start burning biodiesel rather than regular diesel? Yes! That would be a great positive change in our world.
The context of that posting was comparing petroleum diesel to biodiesel. If you think particulates are a huge problem in normal gasoline, you're fairly ill-informed.
Yes, I agree that replacing normal diesel with biodiesel would be a step up IF AND ONLY IF that biodiesel comes out of the waste stream or some new source that doesn't require growing crops (algal, for instance). Otherwise, you end up having to subtract a lot of your 'gains' due to EROEI problems.
But that's not the world we live in. Today, diesel fans are advocating diesel (sometimes biodiesel) instead of things that work better - like gas-electric hybrids, for a variety of reasons (some defensible, many not).