Ultra Low Sulfur Emission Diesel
Posted by Glenn on October 15, 2006 - 11:38am in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: diesel, emissions, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
In a long awaited and hard fought victory, the nation is set this weekend to switch over almost all its diesel fuel to a new vastly lower sulfur content, setting the stage for major improvements in air quality, particularly in dense urban areas like NYC that rely heavily on trucks to deliver goods to our stores and houses.
The new fuel contains 15 parts per million of sulfur, down from the standard of 500 parts per million, thanks to changes in the refining process. As of Sunday, at least 80 percent of the diesel available for trucks and buses has to meet the new standard.
What makes this victory for cleaner air even better was that this was one of those rare instances where environmental lobbyists, government and industry found common ground to cooperate on a long term strategy to define regulations they could all agree to. This is not common and needs to be recognized when it happens.
Old diesel engines burning the cleaner fuel will reduce dangerous particulate emissions by 10 percent, experts say. New engines with improved controls, which have to be available by Jan. 1, will cut this particulate pollution by more than 95 percent. The rule mandates more improved engines in 2010. It is unclear how soon existing trucks and buses, which often are in use for more than 10 years, will be turned in for newer models. The new fuel is expected to cost 3 cents to 5 cents more per gallon.
While the Bush administration is trying to take full credit for this victory, this regulation was initially started in the last days of the Clinton Administration.
Like many regulations that took effect in the twilight of the Clinton administration, the diesel rule, covering fuel and the seven million trucks and buses on the roads, was temporarily stayed by the Bush administration. Then the Environmental Protection Agency allowed it to proceed and in 2004 supplemented it with a similar rule requiring tight controls on engines in off-road equipment like cranes, tractors and construction equipment.Carol M. Browner, the administrator who signed the original rule, bristled on Tuesday at the Bush administration's proprietary attitude.
"The best they can do in environmental policy," Ms. Browner asked, "is take credit for someone else's work?"
While the article did not mention anything about whether this new refining process can be applied to some of the other methods of producing diesel from biomass, coal or tar sands, but I would assume it would at least help. I will investigate and put it in the comments section when I do. It would be interesting to compare the emissions from the new ultra low sulfur diesel in new engines designed to work with it versus biomass, coal or tar sand derived diesel.
I suspect that the "dirty" tag did not have this in mind, nor did it factor into account that diesel is more efficent to make from an energy perspective. Good to know you can take the sulphur out of anything.
This new regulation certainly makes diesel more attractive.
Most state air pollution agencies are charged with monitoring and regulating this emission source. The size trigger depends upon a number of factors including the air quality. And those triggers may vary across a state and through local programs.
As I understand the facts, compared to petrol, diesel has:
- 13% more energy per gallon
- adjusting for that, 30% net higher mpg
The pattern of demand in western Europe is sufficiently distorted by the new popularity of diesels, that although it generally attracts lower duty (in a bid to encourage their use) the price here in the UK is generally 4-5p/litre (7-10 cents) more. The refineries were configured to produce more gasoline when they were built.A diesel hybrid sounds pretty good from an energy / environmental standpoint with the new low sulphur content.
I suspect our refineries have the same bias toward gasoline/petrol.
Our refineries are geared more toward making gasoline, but there is some flexibility. Right now, they are making as much diesel as possible because that's where the profit margins are better.
Europe encouraged diesels by putting lower taxes on diesel fuel. I wish we could do the same. It would greatly lower our fossil fuel usage due to the much higher efficiency issue. A diesel will get something like 35% more mileage per gallon of fuel than gasoline, and double the mileage of ethanol. See the first couple of paragraphs in my essay:
Biodiesel: King of Alternative Fuels
I break down some of the efficiency advantages of biodiesel, which also apply to diesel in general.
http://www.petrolprices.com/
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38346/story.htm
a diesel car costs about $2500 more.
http://lib.smmt.co.uk/articles/sharedfolder/Publications/ACF22CC.pdf
p11 - diesel percentage of new cars:
UK - 37%
France - 69%
Germany -42%
Hybrid cars were only 6,225 (in 2004). Alternate Fuel Vehicles (compressed gas) declined sharply due to the end of a tax subsidy scheme.
The high proportion of diesels in France is price-driven. Historically, diesel was about 20% cheaper at the pump than petrol, because of lower tax -- this was originally a subsidy for truckers. The tax difference has been phased out, but diesel remains slightly cheaper (current prices : around 1.05 euros per litre diesel, 1.15 petrol)
>
> * 13% more energy per gallon
> * adjusting for that, 30% net higher mpg
I just never see this realized!
My friend had a Golf diesel which was rated at 48hp
and got about the same milage as my Chevy Sprint rated
at 52hp (both almost 1,000km per same sized tank).
I see the difference as theoretical - but not realized in practice.
I'm saddened to see that there is only a 10% reduction for older engines as I was pushing my MP about this a few years ago. Indeed in Canada it was a crying shame how a company wanted to sell and advertise their low sulphur fuel; but was barred by the government/industry because in 5, or so, years we were going to phase in the low sulphur fuels.
Also I had a girlfriend who had an GM Vauxhall Corsa-- 52mpg (Imperial Gallons). I think the petrol equivalent would have been about 42mpg.
What crap are you talking about. Khosla is focussing on non-fossil fuels. And you want him to focus on diesel? Maybe Chevron and Devon energy will give him a few hundred million to drill a hole next to their hole in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. A nice diesel gusher 15 billion barrels per year worth - an infinite reservoir.
If my employer paid me to hand around TOD I would be here more.
why did he leave?
This is pretty chilling data he has collected (as usual). He gives credit to khebab as well. Both are listed in this series...I recommend reading for it's 40-50 (hubert curve) charts from around the world (oh shit!).
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/
This isn't for the faint of heart.
Google - Jeffery Brown (aka WESTEXAS) for more good reading.
Best D.
Someone sent me this e-mail this morning:
I almost wrote a satirical piece in response to ChemE questioning your integrity with your ties to big oil. I would have said something to the effect you seemed to be also promoting energy efficiency, mass transportation and plug in hybrids. All these would hurt big oil profitability and go against our non-negotiable rights as Americans to grow and consume. I suspect you are operating as a double agent.
In my response, I said that those with the most extreme biases are the ones who are accusing me of bias.
What crap are you talking about. Khosla is focussing on non-fossil fuels. And you want him to focus on diesel?
Actually the conversation was on biodiesel, and the general fact that the diesel engine is more efficient. But I wouldn't expect you to ask for clarification before conclusion jumping.
If my employer paid me to hand around TOD I would be here more.
Yeah, and it's double-time for a Sunday morning. I will have to remember to put it on my time card.
Final questions: Do you have anything of actual value to add? Didn't you learn anything from the responses you got to your last attack on my integrity?
I am not even sure about the wisdom of any biomass used for fuel (including various flavors of biodiesel). Energy conversion of solar radiation is probably going to most to be most efficient from
(i) direct conversion of impinging solar radiation (e.g. phovoltaics)
(ii) elec. generation through heat/turbines (use the radiation to heat water or something)
(iii) secondary effects (e.g. wind power, wave motion (ultimately sourced from the sun's energy)). Looks like there is a lot of momentum behind wind power.
I think that biomass in any form is not efficient and harmful to the the soil. Therefore the ideal solution for personal auto-type transportation is a plug in hybrid with back-up provided by a biomass fuel - non-fermentation type (e.g. biomass to syn-gas to some liquid burnable). Char/ash to be returned to the soil to return micronutrients.
--
I don't know Khosla though have heard of him by reputation through is co-founding of Sun Micro.
Following the debate here it seems to me that what he wants is
(i) Access to oil interest distribution for distributing biomass based fuels
(ii) A very modest sliding scale pricing subsidy to prevent oil interests from destroying the industry by temporarily dropping the price of fossils
(iii) A very very modest royalty from Oil/Gas extracted from public propery in California to fund development of renewables.
If Khosla indeed intends to use corn-based ethanol he is soon going to be priced out as the price of corn & other inputs escalates.
Oil interests are fighting the proposals tooth and nail.
My 2 cents & my last words.
I agree with you that a biomass solution for our energy needs does not work unless you want to turn the whole planet into one big farm.
If you give it some more thought you may dcide we need to expand electrified mass transit on a massive scale. I think RR may have also said this.
Are you a big oil mole?
Figure 90% availability of convential, so steady 900 GW at peak (min demand 300 GW, average demand 500 GW).
2000 GW wind x .32 capacity factor = 640 GW average output.
50% of generation is used directly, when produced.
50% goes into pumped storage, with 0.81 cycle effiency for hydro pumped storage. So 320 GW into pumped storage, 259 GW out. This gives an AVERAGE output of 579 GW versus a need for 500 GW. Spare capacity for a less windy year (wind varies little year to year) and for seasonal changes in demand & output.
Some of the excess could be put into less efficient pumped air (~60%) in depleted natural gas field (massive storage) for seasonal shifts in demand.
One might count on (depends on area) 5% to 10% of wind being available at peak of 900 GW. So 700 to 800 GW of pumped storage (hydro + air) needed.
To sum 1,000 GW convential generation can be replaced by 2,000 GW of wind turbines and 700 to 800 GW of pumped storage (most hydro, some air).
This is basically how it is done.
Best Hopes,
Alan
So massively more conservative. But it's not clear we have the foresight, the England-Scotland interconnectors, nor the environmental will, to build lots more pumped storage (it would have to be in environmentally protected valleys in Wales and Scotland).
That said, if you assume a load factor of 0.3 (which with offshore wind as well as onshore is credible) then
8760 hrs p.a. X 0.3LF X 25GW = 65.7TWhr = 18.8% of current UK annual demand
UK current capacity is 1GW, but Spanish and German is c. 12GW, which gives you a measure of what is achievable-- the UK could go to 12GW onshore and 12GW offshore relatively quickly (by 2020).
In practice, the other 20GW of backup thermal power already exists, it would just be mothballed. You would only max out on that power 5 days a year or less.
Key factors to success of wind power:
- availability of storage (pumped etc.)
- size and capacity of grid - the US is in a particularly favourable position, as it has more than one 'wind zone', so if the grid is big enough, you can move power from the Midwest to the NE, and vice versa
- at the moment, subsidy however this is because we don't tax CO2 as an effluent. If we tax/ permit CO2, as the US does SO2, then suddenly wind looks like the cheapest of the mass power systems, rather than the most expensive
- cost of interconnections. The existing customers need to be made to share in the costs of new interconnections to wind power stations whereas many utilities are currently taking the view that it is not their problem
If one looks at the direct and indirect subsidies poured into nuclear power and fossil fuel generation, then none of the above is impossible.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/windforce-12-2005
Do you know if anybody has put $ numbers on these ideas in terms of capital investment and $/kwh generated? I have seen cost numbers for wind turbines alone and they look good and more so when you factor in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuel. But I have never seen costs when you factor in backup power, storage, and additional long distance transmission (as from the windy Midwest to the NE) I like the idea of pumped storage versus batteries but wonder where it will go. Protected valleys as Valuethinker points out are going to be a hurdle. Here in Maine we have been removing some hydrodams to bring back Atlantic salmon runs.I suspect all valleys will be considered protected. We also have some excellent wind resource, but it is on mountain tops and ridges and there is concern about the effects on migrating birds. Until it becomes a desperate situation I suspect projects will be slow to be implemented because of environmental, property rights and aesthetic considerations. We won't be making the transition in time.
Why is Europe so far ahead of this than we are? Is it just that the average person is more enlightened?
The short answer, in the UK is that total additional system costs are less than 1p/kwhr, v. 4-5p kw/hr wholesale pool prices.
I know Texas is going big for windpower. I think population density is a big factor (Spain is the least densely populated country in Europe).
Also the historic presence of big structures like windmills. In Crete, no one seems particularly bothered if they stick them on top of hills- Cretans are pragmatic, and their current eneergy supply is almost entirely oil fired (pllus solar water heat).
And in the case of the Danes and the germans, a national decision to go for it.
Generally electricity is expensive in Europe, and all our energy is imported, be it gas or coal. So wind looks better economically.
In addition, our political parties, even our right wing ones, and our media, generally believe man made global warming is real. In the US, the media is still addicted to 'balance' and so global warming sceptics get equal time. Of course the President met with Michael Crichton and praised him publicly, so we know what he thinks about man made global warming, I think he called it 'a conspiracy against American prosperity'.
I generally find Americans think there is a global warming debate ie whether the world is warming up, and whether humans are causing that. Americans also think America should do nothing unless China and India agree to do something. Informed Europeans think the debate is about how fast we have to act, and how far we are willing to go in those actions in terms of changing our lifestyles. Al Gore comes as a shock to Americans, whereas in European circles there was much less impact.
When I read that nearly 50% of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution, I am concerned that we just may never get there on doing something about this.
There is a lot of debate about migratory birds and bats. I note a lot of people suddenly have become bird lovers, who were unlikely bird lovers. The reality is except in a few circumstances, no one has shown they are particularly deadly vs. say, lit up office buildings.
however there are 2 species of migratory bats that seem to have a particular problem.
As with DDT (the ban on), I think a lot of people of a more conservative or libertarian bent hate wind power on general principle, because culturally they see it as associated with environmentalists, greens, green people, restrictions on their way of life. Another iteration of the 'culture wars' (yes we ahve them over here, too)
Plus, we think wind mills are cool. They figure prominently in
Spain's self image (Don Quijote).
I have ridden many busses through the windy central plains,ç
and I have always loved to see those long lines of sleek,
slowly turning wind mills up the hills. I think that they
look amazing. I am mystified that someone can think that
they are ugly.
Not in My Back Yard. NIMBY.
My letter from the Ramblers (lobby group for those who walk in hills) is 'spoiling the views from the National Park of the distant Cairngorms'.
Translation: we are walking through the national park in Perthshire, Scotland (half the land area of the UK, 10% of the population), where windmills are banned. We can see windmills on private land in the far distance.
This is ruining our view. (allegedly) Therefore they must be banned (they have been).
And so Perthshire County Council has a perfect record of rejecting wind power projects, on arguments like those.
The Ramblers are, of course, 'not opposed to local and community wind power, only to large wind stations' ie build it in someone else's back yard (where it is not economic) but don't spoil our walking.
page 5:
UK Onshore wind cost 3.2p +/- 0.3p
Offshore 5.5p
additional system cost 0.17p
good explanation of difference between 'Load Factor' (per cent. of rated capacity over a year that a turbine runs at)
and 'Capacity Value' (Capacity Credit): credit the National Grid Co gives for the wind capacity (about 20% ie 5GW of wind capacity offsets 1GW of theoretical capacity, which is about 1.1GW of CCGT gas (90% capacity credit) and somewhat lower of nuclear (about 75% capacity credit).
The lower storage reservior is usally an existing storage dam structure or a lake that can fluctuate a bit. One in Japan uses seawater, but car must be taken on the upper end and everything must be corrision resistant.
TBM drilling is getting cheap and drilling some distance is possible. All a matter of economics. Best sites are built first of course.
Hope this helps.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I am sorry people are questioning your integrity.
I have read your posts here, and on your own website, and find them to be objective and balanced.
Yes you have the biases of an oil industry engineer. So what? 'Objectivity' is a myth: everyone has biases. My impression of you is not someone who is grinding their axe to ramp some dodgy NASDAQ stock you have loaded up on your personal account.
What your position gives you is a unique level of technical understanding, which informs your postings. If I were a colleague of yours, I would rely on you for objective advice on an issue, even if that advice was not necessarily in your own best interest.
Yours Sincerely
Valuethinker (remove 'at' in email address to reply by email)
PS I liked your Europe blog too-- quite accurate about travelling in Europe.
I am trying to find more time to work on that. I have about 15 essays that are done; I just need to format them, insert links, and maybe some pictures.
Thanks for the other comments.
Because our economy depends so highly on diesel powered freight transportation for 98% of all goods/products/materials moved (except for pipelines), Kosla should be interested in renewable diesel from rapeseed, canola, soybeans or jatropha seeds. All of these have a much higher EROEI than corn ethanol. But he is not interested in any of this.
Without short term solutions to the escalation of diesel fuel prices and future shortages caused by peak oil, the economy of the US is headed for a fall worse than the great depression.
One of my customers is a major fuel distributor/retailer in the upper Midwest. His company sells hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel (gas and diesel) per year and he has withdrawn from the ethanol portion of the business. His current efforts at inovation are BIODIESEL. He has built a small processing plant that recycles old cooking oil from area restaurants and powers his company vehicles (cars and pickups) with the biodiesel. His fleet of tanker trucks still run on conventional diesel.
A solution must soon be found for the decline in oil production, and if part of that is conservation through the use of more diesel engines, then renewable diesel fuel should be an energy priority.
If he wants to a make biomass based burnable liquid fuel (may be but not necessarily ethanol) let him. For the rest see the earlier post.
If some other VC feels like you that biodiesel is the way to go let her/him fund it.
The way you phrased that last sentence isn't exactly correct. Just using some biodiesel won't help meet the requirements. The sulfur still has to be removed from the petroleum diesel. But as you say, that sulfur helps with lubricity, so adding a bit of biodiesel gives the lubricity back without the need for other additives.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/#more-320
The story revolves around a paper that Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize winner for chemistry related to the CFC/ozone depletion link) has written about deliberately adding sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere to increase the albedo and cool the planet - analogous to the natural effects of volcanoes. The paper is being published in Climatic Change, but unusually, with a suite of commentary articles by other scientists. This is because geo-engineering solutions do not have a good pedigree and, regardless of their merit or true potential, are often seized upon by people who for various reasons do not want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
for a visual image of what he is getting at, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#comment-1 9970
(note the sulphate line in the graph)
What we (apparently) have is a world where atmospheric sulphates are (mildly) slowing down the heating of the planet caused by rising CO2. However:
- AFAIK sulphates don't last very long in the atmosphere
- does stratospheric sulphates correlate with ground level emissions of same?
- my gut reaction is that the Chinese putting SO2 scrubbers on their power plants (as we do) is a bad idea for global warming (but good for saving the lives of ordinary Chinese people)
Since diesel engines produce less CO2 per mile driven, and it takes low sulphur fuel to make diesels politically acceptable, it's probably a net win for the planet.(Peak Oil it's a no brainer, of course).