Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

An investigation into a sustainable transport option for the UBC farm : a triple bottom line assessment Green, Christopher; Underhill, Matthew; Vincent, Michael 2012-11-22

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Green_C_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 599.74kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108461.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108461-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108461-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108461-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108461-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108461-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108461-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108461-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108461.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportChristopher Green, Matthew Underhill, Michael VincentAn Investigation Into a Sustainable Transport Option for the UBC Farm: A Triple Bottom Line AssessmentAPSC 261November 22, 20126921361University of British Columbia Disclaimer: ?UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report?.         An Investigation Into a Sustainable Transport Option for the UBC Farm: A Triple Bottom Line Assessment  Christopher Green Matthew Underhill Michael Vincent  Dr. John Grace  Applied Science 261  Thursday, November 22, 2012        Abstract:   This report is an investigation into a sustainable transport option for the UBC farm. Specifically, the farm needs a new truck since the old one is failing to meet what is used for. This report investigates a triple bottom line assessment of three major options: diesel, biodiesel, and hybrid. A triple bottom line assessment covers the economical, environmental, and social aspects and impacts of option.  The farm does have constraints and requirements when it comes to this issue. The truck must last for a minimum for three years and be able to haul heavy loads. Furthermore, it is used year round in rough terrain; therefore four-wheel drive is a necessity. In general, the truck is allowed to be manual and only travels short distances each day.   In conclusion, using B20 fuel in the biodiesel option was found to be best. It abides to all the desired requirements and is the most well rounded choice.  The following report will give an in-depth analysis of how this recommendation was made.                     i Table of Contents: Abstract????????????????????????????????.i List of Illustrations???????????????????????????..iii Glossary???????????????????????????????..iv List of Abbreviations??????????????????????????...v Introduction??????????????????????????????..1 Diesel Option?????????????????????????????...2  Economic Factors?????????????????????????.2  Environmental Factors???????????????????????.5  Social Factors??????????????????????????...6 Biodiesel Option????????????????????????????..8  Economic Factors?????????????????????????.8   Environmental Factors???????????????????????.9   Social Factors??????????????????????????.10  Hybrid Option?????????????????????????????12   Economic Factors????????????????????????...12   Environmental Factors??????????????????????...14   Social Factors??????????????????????????.15  Conclusion and Recommendation?????????????????????.16                           ii List of Illustrations:  Tables:  Table 1????????????????????????????????.2 Table 2????????????????????????????????.4  Table 3????????????????????????????????.5 Table 4????????????????????????????????.5 Table 5????????????????????????????????.6 Table 6????????????????????????????????.7  Figures:  Figure 1????????????????????????????????3 Figure 2????????????????????????????????4 Figure 3???????????????????????????????..13 Figure 4???????????????????????????????..14                         iii Glossary:  No terms to be defined.                                     iv List of Abbreviations:  UBC - University of British Columbia GHG - Greenhouse Gases GREET - Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation FMVSS 208 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 USDA - United States Department of Agriculture USDE - United States Department of Energy CHBE - Chemical and Biological Engineering 4WD - Four-wheel drive                              v Introduction:  As the world makes a shift towards being more sustainable, each local community is contributing. At the University of British Columbia (UBC) farm, they are currently looking for a more green transportation option. In this report, we will perform a triple bottom line assessment of each of the three choices.  At the farm currently, an old 1996 Toyota Tacoma is being used. This truck performs an array of tasks. For example, it hauls heavy equipment and tows a cart full of vegetables. Furthermore, the truck is utilized year-round, but used more routinely during the summer, as this is the peak period for the farm. The background information given will be helpful during the investigation. A triple bottom line assessment will be conducted comparing the options of a diesel, biodiesel, and hybrid vehicles. This will evaluate economical, environmental, and social aspects that each option has. A recommendation will be made based on this method of assessment.                         Page 1 2.0 DIESEL OPTION:  The use of petroleum diesel fuel is the most common, yet many issues and questions have been raised over the past years. The main concern of the usage of petro-fuel is the greenhouse gases (GHG) it produces, which include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and dioxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and ozone (O3). Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, causing global warming.  In general case, diesel is assessed based on its life cycle emissions, although in this report, it will be analyzed on three elements of triple bottom line assessment: economical, environmental, and social aspects.  2.1 Economical Factors:  In the table below, the cost and fuel efficiencies of several diesel trucks will be outlined to serve as a set of reference data. This table will also help us balance the environmental impact of fuel consumption and the value of the truck. This table will also illustrate the price discrepancy between new and used vehicles.  New  Truck Model Fuel Economy City Fuel Economy Highway Price 2012 GMC Canyon 11.4 L/100km 7.8 L/100km $25,330 2012 Chevrolet Colorado 11.4 L/100km 7.8 L/100km $25,330 2011 GMC Sierra 14.1 L/100km 10.0 L/100km $24,455 Second Hand  Truck Model Price 2004 Ford Ranger $5,100 2004 GMC Canyon $8,400 2004 Chevrolet Colorado $8,500 2006 GMC Sierra $9,900 1996 Ford Explorer $2,350 Table 1 - New and Second Hand Truck Prices Source: Prices obtained from http://www.autodata.gm.ca and Craigslist Vancouver  At a glance, this table shows that a new diesel truck will cost roughly $23,000 - $27,000 and second-hand trucks may cost up to $10,000.   Fuel consumption rates are measured by price per unit energy, which is given by a unique energy content for each type of fuel. Values and price are presented below in the following tables, presented is energy density for each type of fuel in the unit of kWh/L and price is $/L. From the data, we can calculate the price per unit energy, which is what is wanted to compare each fuel economical value. The unit for the price is $/kWh, which tells one how much it costs exactly per unit kiloWatt-hour.   Figure 1: Source: retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html Page 3  Figure 2 - Energy Density Table Source: Hossate & Lagace, 2003, p.60    Fuel Type Unit Price Energy Density Price B20 $1.0118 /L 10.555 kWh/L $0.0959 / kWh B100 $1.1174 /L 9.771 kWh/L $0.1144 / kWh Petrodiesel $0.9906 /L 10.118 kWh/L $0.0979 / kWh Table 2 - Price per unit energy   The data yields that petrodiesel has the lowest cost of price per litre. However, if one carefully studies the energy density, which is the amount of energy stored in a given region of space per unit volume, it is noted that B20 has the lowest cost per unit energy. This result presents the ultimate fact of the economical value of petrodiesel, that the price is greater than B20 biodiesel.    Page 4 2.2 Environmental Factor:  Argonne National Laboratory?s GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model studies the life cycle of petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions of light-duty vehicles. Based on this model, petrodiesel emits 6%-11% less GHGs than ethanol-based gasoline throughout the entire life cycle. The density is also higher, by approximately 12% more than ethanol petrol (0.832 kg/L compared to 0.745 kg/L). Due to its higher density, petrofuel offers higher volumetric energy density. Comparatively, petrodiesel is more environmental friendly than ethanol based gasoline.   Levelton/NRCan study examines the complete life cycle of each fuel, diesel and B20 from different raw materials. It shows the GHG emissions from each type and here we will focus on the diesel specification alone, while analysis of the others will be presented in biodiesel section.     Petrodiesel Biodiesel  Canola Soy Oil Animal Fat  G/mile G/mile G/mile G/mile Total lifecycle 2312.4 2025.1 2028.0 1900.5 Table 3 - LevNRCan B20 GHG Life cycle Source: Schmidt, 2004 p. 6  Petrodiesel Biodiesel  Canola Soy Oil Animal Fat  G/mile G/mile G/mile G/mile Total lifecycle 2312.4 838.4 853.3 194.4 Table 4 - LevNRCan B100 GHG Lifecycle Source: Schmidt, 2004 p.6  Page 5  The table below shows carbon intensity of each type of fuel. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon emitted by weight per unit of energy consumed. The less, the better it is since it will produce a smaller volume of GHG per unit volume consumed. The unit is gram per megaJoule.  Lifecycle Pathway Description Carbon Intensity (g/MJ) B.C. Average Diesel  93.33 Biodiesel 2 - Produced in Saskatchewan 11.19 Table 5 - Fuel Carbon Intensity Source: B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2011  The comparison presents a result that diesel has higher GHG lifecycle. Fuel carbon intensity above amplifies the fact that diesel has significantly higher carbon concentration in each unit gram. These facts reveal that indeed, B20 and B100 are incomparably more environmental friendly than regular petrofuel.  2.3 Social Factors:   On social aspect of the vehicle, the safety issues are a major concern. The safety, specifically on airbag is the most significant factor since it is going to be used in rough terrain while transporting and hauling heavy equipment and farm products. In addition, by using a specific truck with a chosen fuel option, the UBC Farm can build positive relationships with other departments; it is one of the factors that contribute to social impact.       Page 6 Table below shows different year of airbag implementation for various truck companies. Companies Driver Seat Passenger Seat Toyota 1995 1998 Chevrolet 1995 1997 Ford 1994 1997 GMC 1995 1997 Table 6 - Starting year of airbag implementation Source: Various literature studies and secondary resources   On July 11th, 1984, U.S. Government amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208) to require cars produced after April 1st, 1989 to be equipped with a passive restraint for the driver. Airbags were not mandatory for light trucks until 1995. In 1998, FMVSS 208 was amended to have dual front airbags, and second generation airbags were also mandated.    Taking in consideration of the current UBC Farm truck, which is from the Toyota family, any truck post-1998 will be safer. Thus, if a used truck is purchased, it is greatly advised that its manufacturing date is past 1998. Airbags on driver and passenger sides are a necessity to ensure safeness.   After interviewing the UBC Fleet Operation, they can provide no donation to UBC Farm as of this year, and they also informed that none of their light-duty trucks are diesel powered. This eliminates the possibility of converting the truck from petrodiesel to biodiesel. Therefore, this is no longer a viable option. Furthermore, there is neither connection nor cooperation from the UBC Fleet Operation to the UBC Farm, making this insusceptible to the social impact that is being analyzed.        Page 7 3.0 Biodiesel Option:   A vehicle running on biodiesel is an attractive option when considering possible service vehicles for the UBC farm. Biodiesel is available as pure biodiesel and blended with conventional diesel. The most common of these blends are B5, B20, and B100, which refer to the percent composition of the fuel. For example, B20 is 20 percent Biodiesel and 80 percent conventional diesel. Biodiesel, or biodiesel-diesel blends, offer both costs and reliability comparable to conventional diesel fuel while reducing the overall emissions (E.E.R.E.) and, in the case of the UBC community, helping to support the CHBE Sustainability Club and the on-campus production of biodiesel.    3.1 Economic Factors:   The price of operating Biodiesel vehicles is almost identical to operating conventional diesel vehicles. Most biodiesel blends require no engine conversion meaning that the initial investment in a biodiesel vehicle and its operation costs are almost identical to that of a conventional diesel vehicle. The few points that the two vehicles differ on are directly related to the fact that biodiesel is slightly more corrosive than conventional diesel. This causes two minor issues that are relatively inexpensive compared to the overall cost of the vehicle to remedy, increased wearing on seals and hoses that come into contact with biodiesel, and shorter fuel filter life.   The increased wear and tear on fuel hoses and seals may provide issues when running on biodiesel blends higher than 20 percent biodiesel. The corrosive nature of biodiesel may hasten the deterioration of already worn seals in the case of previously used vehicles (Butler), or soften and degrade certain types of new seals and hoses causing them to soon leak and disintegrate (N.R.E.L.).  While this may cause performance and reliability issues if left unchecked, such as leakage and loss of pressure in parts of the fuel system, this is a minor repair that may be completed for minimal expense.   Page 8 During the first few months of operating a vehicle with biodiesel that has previously operated on conventional diesel it is common for the life span of fuel filters to noticeably decrease. Like the corrosive effects on the fuel seals and hoses, this does not add considerable expense to the maintenance cost of the vehicle but will cause decreased performance and reliability if left unchecked. The shortening of the fuel filter life span is due to biodiesel?s corrosive nature acting as a cleaning agent for the fuel system and dislodging accumulated debris from conventional diesel. It is recommended that the fuel system be cleaned before operating the vehicle on pure or blended biodiesel to avoid this problem entirely (N.R.E.L.). If the fuel system is not cleaned prior to using biodiesel blends, this problem may only persist for the life of one or two filters and is almost negligible in price.   Both the initial and maintenance costs of operating a biodiesel vehicle are almost identical to that of conventional diesel vehicles, especially if kept in proper maintenance.   3.2 Environmental Factors:   Due to the similarities between biodiesel and conventional diesel, and that it is quite common for diesel vehicles to be used for service vehicles in many situations similar to that of the UBC Farm, conventional diesel vehicles can be used as a benchmark against which we can compare biodiesel vehicles. Although a biodiesel vehicle cannot claim zero emissions like an electric vehicle can, it can boast many emission decreases over conventional diesel vehicles. In particular, biodiesel fuels release fewer particulate emissions, which can be linked to environmental effects such as smog and increased health risk for the population of the immediate area.    A joint study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) and the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S.D.E.) claims that ?B100 (100 percent biodiesel) exhibits life cycle total particulate matter emissions that are 32.41 percent less than those of petroleum diesel?. The emissions of particulate matter less than ten microns in size is reduced even further than the total particulate matter with B100 producing as much as sixty-eight  Page 9 percent less than conventional diesel. This decrease in particulate matter is particularly relevant for the UBC Farm which will be operating its vehicle mostly on the UBC campus and the immediate vicinity, and may be considered as both an environmental and social factor as the amount of particulate matter smaller than ten microns in size, can be directly linked to respiratory disease, especially in urban areas (U.S.D.A. and U.S.D.E.).  ?Biodiesel?s life cycle produces 35 percent more total hydrocarbons than petroleum diesel?s life cycle, even though tailpipe total hydrocarbons emissions (emissions measured from the only the consumption of the fuel, not its production) are 37 percent lower?. This increase of hydrocarbon emissions over petroleum diesel is due to the production of the biomass required to produce biodiesel (U.S.D.A. and U.S.D.E.). In the case of the biodiesel produced on campus it is arguable that the emission from biomass production may be discounted. The CHBE Sustainability Club produces its biodiesel from waste cooking oil that cannot be sold (Butler), not biomass that was purpose grown for biodiesel. That is to say that the biomass has already been created for another purpose, and will not create any net positive emissions.  Making the argument that the CHBE Sustainability Club?s biodiesel does not create any net emissions to produce, it is clear that while not as clean as an electric or hybrid vehicle, it is less harmful to the immediate environment than conventional diesel vehicles.  3.3 Social Factors:   Biodiesel vehicles demonstrate several social advantages over conventional diesel vehicles. While not being able to boast zero emissions like an electric vehicle, they are more appealing and fit better with the UBC Farm mission statement than conventional diesel vehicles, and they help to support the Chemical and Biological Engineering Sustainability Club.    Page 10  Particle emissions have the most impact on the surrounding community and environment, increasing the health risk to the population around their source and causing environmental impacts such as smog. By reducing these emissions the harmful effects of a vehicle?s operation on the community are directly decreased.   While not as appealing to many as electric vehicles, biodiesel vehicles are much more appealing than petroleum fuel vehicles, especially to individuals looking to support a sustainable organization. Whether or not the environmental advantages are as great as they are perceived, the appeal and perception of a biodiesel vehicle fits into the mission statement of the UBC Farm, specifically  ?the creation of new patterns for sustainable and healthy communities integrated with their surrounding ecology,? (Centre for Sustainable Food Systems at UBC Farm).   While strengthening the UBC Farm image, the consumption of biodiesel on the UBC campus directly supports the Chemical and Biological Engineering Sustainability Club, which is the only producer of biodiesel on campus. Support from the UBC Farm would help the CHBE Sustainability Club to prove their biodiesel production process and increase their production, which is currently limited by a lack of demand (Butler).                   Page 11    4.0 HYBRID OPTION:               A hybrid truck is a satisfactory option  when choosing a vehicle for the UBC farm. A hybrid vehicle is an automobile that uses at least two sources of power to put the vehicle in motion. The two most common power sources are an internal combustion engine and an electric motor. It is by far the most beneficial option when assessing the environmental effects, but it comes at a very high price.  4.1 Economic Factors:   The cost of a truck is a strong determining factor when considering purchasing one. By far the most influential factors around the cost of a truck are the base price and the fuel economy.    Hybrid trucks base price is expensive. Currently, the average price to purchase a hybrid truck is around $40,000.  Since the farm will need a model with four-wheel drive (4WD), this adds roughly $4,000 to the base cost. There are a variety of features that can be added to the vehicle such as Bluetooth, dual-zone climate control, navigation system, et cetera. Most of these luxuries are unnecessary and will only make the truck more costly. In addition, since hybrid trucks are a very new technology, there are scarcely any used ones available. Due to this issue, it is difficult to save money when going to purchase a hybrid truck.  With oil prices constantly increasing, fuel economy is an important aspect to consider when buying any vehicle. With an average price of around 120 cents per litre in the greater Vancouver area, and assuming the hybrid truck is driven 10km per day; the money spent on fuel will be $515 per year. When compared to a conventional diesel truck with the same analysis, $689 will be spent each year on fuel. This creates a savings of $174 each year on fuel (see figure 1). With the hybrid base price being $44,000 and a  Page 12  diesel truck being $20,000, it would take nearly 140 years to offset the cost and for the farm to begin seeing a benefit.   Money spent per year on fuel with hybrid truck: $1.20  .  11.76L  .  10km  .  365 days  =  $515/year        L        100km       day           year  Money spent pear year on fuel with conventional diesel truck: $1.20  .  15.68L  .  10km  .  365 days  =  $689/year      L        100km       day           year  Money saved per year with use of hybrid over conventional: $689 - $515 = $174 saved per year                                                                            Figure 3     Since the truck must run for a minimum of three years, a similar analysis can be performed to find out how far the truck must be driven each day for the saved fuel to be beneficial. See figure 2 for this calculation. Since the hybrid truck must be driven 466km/day, it is completely impractical. Furthermore, the truck would undergo far more maintenance when put under that much duress. Therefore, the maintenance cost would rise. Hybrid trucks have a great impact on fuel economy, but in this situation it is unrealistic for it to be an advantage.       Page 13 Fuel efficiency difference between hybrid and conventional: 15.68L  -  11.76L   =   3.92L 100km     100km       100km  Distance that must be driven each day for a hybrid to save $8,000 per year in fuel costs: $8000  .    1 year     .   1L    .    100km  =  466km/day   year      365 days    $1.20      3.92L                                                                             Figure 4   4.2 Environmental Factors:    The hybrid option is the top pick if it was solely based on the environment. The fuel efficiency, particle emissions, and battery disposal are all factors that play into this.     Fuel efficiency and power consumption are major factors to consider when looking for a sustainable transport option.  Since the UBC farm will only be doing city driving, hybrid trucks will on average achieve 11.76 litres per 100km. When compared to diesel trucks, it is a vast improvement at roughly 8-10%. However, when related to hybrid cars, which can attain up to 4.70 litres per 100km, it is not nearly as efficient. In addition, hybrid trucks do not need to be plugged in to charge their battery. It generates its own power using a brake and acceleration method.  Furthermore, the gas motor can charge the battery when it is not in use.    Each year, roughly 1.54 billion metric tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO?) are released into the atmosphere. This can greatly alter the global atmosphere. A hybrid truck is a great contributor in reducing this effect. It approximately emits half the amount of CO? of a normal vehicle. Moreover, a used hybrid truck releases up to 97% less toxins.   Page 14 Hybrid trucks are major step forward in improving the atmosphere and are still improving.    Conventional trucks utilize a series of lead-acid batteries but hybrid trucks utilize a special kind of battery.  They use a 300-volt nickel-metal hydride battery. It poses as a hazardous waste, but is difficult to quantify since hybrid trucks are a very new innovation. Most hybrid trucks use a nickel cadmium (NiCad) compound for the battery. Cadmium is a very toxic metal and must have special treatment when the battery is recycled. Nonetheless, the lifetime of the battery lasts around 160,000 kilometres with proper maintenance. Since the truck must only run for three years and is often inactive or dormant most days, this will be sufficient. In the long run though, the Cadmium in the battery may impact the environment negatively.  4.3 Social Factors:               Hybrid trucks have numerous social advantages. The most prevalent benefits are the low particle emissions on the community and the manufacturing location.   Particle emissions have the biggest effect in the immediate surrounding neighbourhood and environment. Since hybrid trucks consume much less fuel, less particles are emitted. This allows the air to be cleaner and overall healthier, and reduces the negative effects on the community.   GMC is currently the only manufacturer of hybrid trucks in the world. The hybrid trucks are made in Oshawa, Ontario where their manufacturing plant is. This gives Canadians jobs and by purchasing a hybrid truck, helps out the country.    These two factors aid in supporting the UBC farm?s image. They are able to give back locally and nationally, which is favourable on the social standpoint.   Page 15  5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations   This report has covered the three possibilities that we found to be the most likely most likely solutions for the UBC Farm. While review these options we had to keep in mind the triple bottom line targets set out for us by the UBC Farm. Most important to the UBC Farm was to find a transport option that fit their mission statement, ?the creation of new patterns for sustainable and healthy communities integrated with their surrounding ecology? (UBC Farm). If this were simply the case then our recommendation would be to invest in a new hybrid vehicle, or possibly electric, which would provide everything one would look for in a utility vehicle while adhering to the UBC Farm?s sustainability goals. Unfortunately such a vehicle is a large investment, unreasonably large for what the UBC Farm has available in it?s budget of approximately $5,000-$10,000. This limitation kept us from doing any in depth research into the possibility of an electric vehicle as our preliminary research found it to be out of our price range, leading to our decision to examine hybrid, diesel, and biodiesel vehicles. Following our research we found that a biodiesel vehicle would be the best solution for the UBC Farm?s next vehicle. We found that this option has the least environmental impact while remaining within the UBC Farm?s budget and allowing for the possibility of vehicle repair at the UBC Plant Operations garage. The biodiesel required to run a vehicle is available from the CHBE Sustainability Club and made on UBC?s campus, and using this fuel would support the Sustainability Club as they expand their production to supply more utility vehicles around the UBC campus.        Page 16  REFERENCES: Airbag. (n.d.). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag  Alternative Fuels Data Center. (2012). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Fuel & Vehicle. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy Website: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html  B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2011). Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation: Fuel Carbon Intensities. Retrieved from http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/RET/RLCFRR/Documents/Fuel%20CIs%20Jan%202011.pdf  Butler, J. (Nov. 14, 2012), Interview.  Cam, (2012). Are Hybrid Trucks Worth It?  Retrieved from: http://carwoo.com/blog/are-hybrid-trucks-worth-it/  Cars Direct, (2009). Advantages and Disadvantages of Buying a Used Hybrid 4x4  Truck  Retrieved from: http://www.carsdirect.com/used-car-buying/disadvantages-of- buying-a-used-hybrid-4x4-truck  Cars Direct, (2009). Advantages and Disadvantages of Hybrid Trucks  Retrieved from: http://www.carsdirect.com/green-cars/hybrid-trucks- advantages-and-disadvantages  Centre for Sustainable Food Systems at UBC Farm, (2010). Vision  Retrieved from : http://ubcfarm.ubc.ca/about/vision/  Diesel Fuel. (n.d.).  In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel  Hall, L. (n.d.) Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid  Retrieved from: http://www.hybridcars.com/trucks/gm-hybrid-pickup- trucks.html  Hosatte, P., & Lagac?, C. (2003). BIOBUS project- final report. Retrieved from    http://www.stm.inf o/english/info/a-biobus-final.pdf    Page 17 Howard, J. (2009) The Beauty of a Hybrid Pickup Truck  Retrieved from: http://www.driving.ca/research- car/roadtest/beauty+hybrid+pickup+truck/1287789/story.html  Huo, H., Wang, M., Bloyd, C., & Putsche, V. (2008). Life Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Soybean-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels (Report No. ANL/ESD/08-2). Retrieved from Argonne National Laboratory Website: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/467.pdf  National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (2008). Clean Cities : Fact Sheet  Retrieved from CHBE Sustainability Club (via email).  National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (2009). Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide  Retrieved from CHBE Sustainability Club (via email).  Perlman, M. (2012). Hybrid Pickups? Not Any Time Soon?  Retrieved from: http://www.technobuffalo.com/news/cars/hybrid-pickups- not- any-time-soon/  Schmidt, L. (2004). Biodiesel vehicle fuel: GHG reductions, air emissions, supply and economic overview. Climate Change Central, Retrieved from http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/alccc/2004/160485.pdf  U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy, (1998). An Overview of  Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles.  Retrieved from CHBE Sustainability Club (via email).  WorldWatch Institute, (2012). Diesels Versus Hybrids  Retrieved from: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/579                Page 18 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108461/manifest

Comment

Related Items