If anyone had believed 100 years ago that truck engines would some day run on soya beans, vegetables — even fish oil — it would have been Rudolph Diesel himself.

Indeed, the inventor of the diesel engine would have found nothing fishy about powering engines with the same product we use for cooking french fries.

“The use of vegetable oil for engine fuels,” he said when filing his patent for the diesel engine back in 1912, “may be insignificant today. But such oils may become in the course of time as important as the petroleum and coal tar products of the present time.”

Diesel’s words might come true yet.

More and more, people are talking about “biodiesel” — a non-toxic, animal- or plant-oil-based fuel that is said to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions dramatically.

It can be burned in any standard, unmodified diesel engine in pure form (B100) or in a blend with petroleum diesel. However, a blend of B20 (20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel) is most common for commercial vehicles. In colder climates, where biodiesel has been known to gel, blends typically get as low as B5 or B2.

Folks have been experimenting with biodiesel since before World War II. And recently, a handful of Canadian fleets have actually embraced the idea.

Toronto Hydro was one of the first operations in Canada to pump biodiesel into their trucks. In 2002 the utility switched its 400-vehicle fleet to B20. At the time, Roger Smith, manager of fleet services, told Today’s Trucking that the engines delivered similar or better torque, horsepower, and fuel economy as 100-percent petroleum-diesel powered engines, while also cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

Since then, the City of Brampton, Ont. has also fueled up, becoming the first Canadian municipality to commit its entire work-truck fleet to the ongoing use of biodiesel. It even began experimenting with blends as high as B50. The City of Halifax also came out with its own Atlantic twist on biodiesel, stirred up a brew of 80 percent diesel fuel and 20 percent fish oil for its fleet of buses.

“Biodiesel isn’t just a so-called renewable fuel, but a true renewable fuel we can grow and produce right here,” says Govindh Jayaraman, president of Ottawa-based biodiesel supplier Topia Energy.

B100 isn’t unheard of in Canada, but needs several fuel delivery system modifications. Regardless, Topia’s Jayaraman says, “Fleets should be steered away from that kind of thinking. It makes them think that biodiesel is a lot of work.”

But B20, Jayaraman explains, is absolutely viable in average fleet conditions, while B5 or B10 should be considered for colder, northern operations. Both blends, according to Jayaraman and other biodiesel proponents, produce virtually the same or improved engine performance, wear, and fuel economy.

“Biodiesel combusts more efficiently in the combustion chamber,” he says. “The reason is simple: the greatest innovations in diesel engine performance are about oxygenating the fuel — injecting more air into the combustion chamber and getting better aspiration of the fuel.” What better way, he asks, than putting biodiesel — where the fuel molecule is 8 percent oxygen — into the mix?

Ken Canning, president of Markham, Ont.,-based petroleum products hauler FIBA Canning Inc., backs many of biodiesel’s claims. He’s tested blends from B2 to B100 in his four tractors spec’d with 430-hp Detroit Diesel engines, hauling 140,000-pound liquid bulk loads.

“Whether it’s B2, 5, 20, or even 100, we haven’t had any significant problems,” says Canning, who gets his biodiesel from Topia.

As for torque or horsepower, Canning reports no degradation. In fact, he says, when operating B100, many veteran tank drivers reported that pulling power actually improved.

Still, besides Canning and a handful of others, biodiesel use within the for-hire carrier community is almost non-existent. While many carriers might admit to being intrigued by the concept, they aren’t ready to jump on the bio-bandwagon any time soon.

The high cost of biodiesel has always been a hurdle. It also seems carriers aren’t buying all the glowing reports, and questions still linger on how biodiesel affects engine warranties. If some “tree huggers” want to experiment with the crazy concoctions, more power to them, many truckers insist. But stay out of my fuel tank, thank you very much.

Those folks may soon not have a choice in Ontario, however. That province has been hyping biodiesel for years and has even exempted it from its 14.3-cents-a-litre fuel tax. Now there’s serious talk that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture is teaming up with the Ministry of the Environment to mandate to some degree a biodiesel blend — likely something light such as B2 or B5 — for commercial vehicles.

The Ontario Trucking Association promises that it will fight any such measure if it thinks the government is trying to create a new alternate fuels industry on the backs of truckers.

“If that’s the ultimate answer, then we are opposed to biodiesel,” Stephen Laskowski, the OTA’s assistant vice president, told Today’s Trucking. “We will not allow ourselves to become the subsidizer of a new industry, when we’re already gaining environmental benefits [with the new post-’02 engines].”

Those engines — which cost $5,000 to $10,000 more per unit than pre-2002 diesels — have substantially cut particulate matter and nitrous oxides (NOx) since 2002, and will virtually eliminate such pollutants by 2007. Engines meeting ’07 standards will probably cost another $5,000 or more.

“So the question,” according to Laskwoski, “becomes ‘why?’ since we’re already dealing with [smog and pollutions] problems effectively. “What are the ancillary benefits of biodiesel? I look at it, and see very few for our sector in the medium to long term.”

In fact, a 2002 Environmental Protection Agency study, entitled a Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts, reported an increase in NOx with biodiesel, the extent of which depended on blend and feedstock. The study also concluded after initial testing that certain biodiesel fuels can actually increase carbon dioxide by 3 percent in comparison to conventional diesel.

However, the same study also found that NOx increases were negligible at low-level blends, and biodiesel with higher cetane values should have a neutral effect on NOx. Ironically, it’s the high-cetane animal-based biodiesel that increases CO2, although plant byproduct with standard diesel has no such effect.

In a letter to the OTA, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) admits that some air-quality benefits of biodiesel may be mitigated in time as the new generation of EPA-mandated engines and low-sulfur fuel become more widely used after 2007.

However, NRCan adds that biodiesel still tackles GHG’s that the new generation heavy-duty diesels won’t, such as carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound.

In the end, the EPA study, as well as an Engine Manufacturers Association technical statement, concluded that, despite some adverse affects with high biodiesel blends, a B5 mixture should not cause engine or fuel system problems.

“Notice they didn’t say ‘will not,’ but ‘should not,'” Laskowski says. He adds that there are no guarantees that the use of biodiesel will not void the warranty of trucking equipment — especially for the upcoming ’07 engines, which have not undergone any extensive testing while running on biodiesel.

Here is what Cummins officials say about biofuels: “Cummins neither approves nor disapproves of the use of biodiesel fuel blends. Cummins is not in a position to evaluate the many variations of biodiesel fuels, and the long-term effects on performance, durability or emissions compliance of Cummins products. The use of biodiesel fuel does not affect Cummins materials and workmanship warranty.

“Failures caused by the use of bio-diesel fuels or other fuel additives are not defects of Cummins parts or workmanship and therefore would not be covered by Cummins warranty.”

But then Cummins adds “Given the current industry understanding of biofuels and blending with quality diesel fuel, it would be expected that blending up to a 5 percent volume concentration should [not] or most probably will not cause serious problems.” The company also said it intends to work towards increasing the blending percentage in the near future.

One issue that’s much less debatable is cost. While Ontario’s tax incentive may help mitigate the cost of production, Laskowski points out the supply logistics would definitely hike prices for truckers at the pump.

“We’d be making an island out of ourselves in terms of the fuel-distribution network,” he says. “Not only would we face the cost associated with the introduction of biodiesel, we’d be faced with a logistics issue of a special type of fuel — just like California. And take a look at their rack prices.”

Cost and delivery system aside, it’s hard to ignore the glowing reviews that come from people who pump biodiesel into their trucks.

Canning is one of those true believers. He even suggests that biodiesel could be one solution available to an oil industry struggling to solve the lubricity problems associated with soon-to-be mandated 15-ppm low-sulfur diesel.

“I would say biodiesel would be a perfect complement [for ultra-low sulfur fuel],” he says. “Even a low blend is all you really need to meet your lubricity requirements.”

Canning is no tree-hugger. He says he’s just a small fleet-owner trying to run a business while doing his small part for the environment too.

“We were definitely skeptical going in. Being something new, I think everybody is looking for every little thing that can go wrong,” he says. “But once we saw the results, we couldn’t help but support it.”

It may take a lot longer for others to agree.