Decarbonization of the EU transportation policy will only be successful if it places the right incentives for the production of advanced alternative fuels

According to a recent article in the Financial Times, the company responsible for waste water treatment in London spends 1 million pounds a month on fatberg removal. Fatbergs have been defined as “large conglomerations of fat, oil and grease” which accumulate in the sewer systems under our cities and eventually clog them.

Waste management companies throughout the EU have been increasingly reporting constant encounters with fatbergs over the past few years. Most of these companies are public or semi-public entities.

An extrapolation of the London figures gives a good indication of the amount of public money being spent in clearing fatbergs from urban sewers: dozens, if not hundreds of millions wasted every year.

Projected increases of urban population and changing eating patterns indicate that fatbergs are to become larger and more abundant.

For many years collectors of waste cooking oil, widely known as used cooking oil (UCO), have been providing a public service by ensuring the separate removal of used cooking oil from restaurants.

Private and public initiatives, mostly at municipal level, have been promoting collection of used cooking oil from households. Their work should be recognized and promoted by the public authorities.

The motto of the new EU paradigm the “Circular Economy” states that “waste is a resource”. Rightfully so. Used cooking oil is no exception, quite on the contrary, as it is the feedstock of one of the greenest existing alternative fuels, known as Used Cooking Oil Methyl Ester, or UCOME.

This alternative fuel has greenhouse gas savings of up to 90% when compared to fossil fuel. Being a waste, it does not compete with food or feed and produces no indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions. As such it is to be considered as a second generation or advanced biofuel.

The EU’s Energy and Climate energy Policy is at a crossroads following the COP 21 Agreement reached in Paris last December. In order to achieve its objectives (limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C) the EU will have to use all available sustainable tools to effectively reduce the carbon footprint of the EU economy.

Used cooking oil collection and its use for the production of alternative fuels necessarily have to play a role in this process.

The European Commission estimates that the EU transport sector produces nearly a fourth of the EU greenhouse gas savings emissions.

In order to tackle these figures, the Energy Union Strategy foresees a number of key legislative or policy instruments to be adopted within the next year, namely a Communication on the Decarbonization of the EU transport Sector, a Renewable Energy Directive for 2030, a Directive on the sustainability of bioenergy and a Communication on Waste to Energy.

This integrated approach to decarbonization of the EU transportation policy will only be successful if it places the right incentives for the production of second generation, advanced alternative fuels.

In this context, a specific recognition of used cooking oil-based biodiesel as a highly sustainable alternative fuel in the Communication on Decarbonizing the Transport Sector coupled with the introduction of right incentives for the production of used-cooking oil biodiesel in the upcoming Renewable Energy Directive for 2030, and the endorsement of used cooking oil collection practices in the Communication on Waste to Energy appear as the most suitable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while liberating millions of euros currently being spent on waste management, literally eaten by the fatbergs silently growing beneath our feet.

Ways to reduce the high viscosity of Vegetable Oils

Different ways have been considered to reduce the high viscosity of vegetable oils:

1. Dilution of 25 parts of vegetable oil with 75 parts of diesel fuel.

2. Microemulsions with short chain alcohols such as ethanol or methanol.

3. Transesterification with ethanol or methanol, which produces biodiesel.

4. Pyrolysis and catalytic cracking, which produces alkanes, cycloalkanes, alkenes,

and alkylbenzenes.

1. Dilution of oils with solvents and microemulsions of vegetable oils lowers the viscosity, some engine performance problems, such as injector coking and more carbon deposits, etc. To dilute vegetable oils the addition of 4% ethanol increases the brake thermal efficiency, brake torque, and brake power, while decreasing brake specific fuel consumption. Since the boiling point of ethanol is less than those of vegetable oils the development of the combustion process may be assisted through unburned blend spray. The viscosity of oil can be lowered by blending with pure ethanol. 25 parts vegetable oil and 75 parts diesel have been blended as diesel fuel. This mixture is not suitable for long-term use in a direct injection engine.

2. Another way to reduce of the high viscosity of vegetable oils, microemulsions with immiscible liquids such as methanol, ethanol, and ionic or non-ionic amphiphiles. Short engine performances of both ionic and non-ionic microemulsions of ethanol in soybean oil were nearly as good as that of No. 2 diesel fuel.. All microemulsions with butanol, hexanol, and octanol met the maximum viscosity requirement for No. 2 diesel fuel. The 2-octanol is an effective amphiphile in the micellar solubilization of methanol in triolein and soybean oil. Lower viscosities and better spray patterns (more even) could be achieved with an increase of butanol. All microemulsions with butanol, hexanol, and octanol meet the maximum viscosity requirement for No. 2 diesel. The 2-octanol is an effective amphiphile in the micellar solubilization of methanol in triolein and soybean oil. Methanol is often used due to its economic advantage over ethanol.

3. Among all these alternatives, transesterification seems to be the best choice, as the physical characteristics of fatty acid esters (biodiesel) are very close to those of diesel fuel, and the process is relatively simple. In the esterification of an acid, an alcohol acts as a nucleophilic reagent; in hydrolysis of an ester, an alcohol is displaced by a nucleophilic reagent. Transesterified vegetable oils have proven to be a viable alternative diesel engine fuel with characteristics similar to those of diesel fuel. The transesterification reaction proceeds with a catalyst or any unused catalyst by using primary or secondary monohydric aliphatic alcohols having 1–8 carbon atoms as follows. Transesterification is catalyzed by a base (usually alkoxide ion) or acid (H2SO4 or dry HCl). The transesterification is an equilibrium reaction. To shift the equilibrium to the right, it is necessary to use a large excess of the alcohol or else to remove one of the products from the reaction mixture. Furthermore, the methyl or ethyl esters of fatty acids can be burned directly in unmodified diesel engines, with very low deposit formation. Although short-term tests using neat vegetable oil show promising results, longer tests lead to injector coking, more engine deposits, ring sticking, and thickening of the engine lubricant. These experiences lead to the use of modified vegetable oil as a fuel. Technical properties of biodiesel, such as the physical and chemical characteristics of methyl esters related are close to, such as physical and chemical characteristics of methyl esters related to its performance in compression ignition engines are close to petroleum diesel fuel. Compared with transesterification, the pyrolysis process has more advantages. The liquid fuel produced from pyrolysis has similar chemical components to conventional petroleum diesel fuel.

4. Pyrolysis utilizes biomass to produce a product that is used both as an energy source and a feedstock for chemical production. Compared with transesterification, the pyrolysis process has more advantages. The liquid fuel produced from pyrolysis has similar chemical components to conventional petroleum diesel fuel. Vegetable oils can be converted to a maximum of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons by pyrolysis, decarboxylation, deoxygenation, and catalytic cracking processes.

Transesterification of Vegetable Oils under Ultrasonic Irradiation

Ultrasound Technology Influence of ultrasound on transesterification reaction is of purely physical nature. Formation of fine emulsion between oil and alcohol due to microturbulence generated by cavitation bubbles generates enormous interfacial area, which accelerates the reaction.

Ultrasound is the process of propagation of the compression waves with frequencies above the range of human hearing. Ultrasound frequency ranges from 20 kHz to l0 MHz, with associated acoustic wavelengths in liquids of about 100- 0.15 mm. These wavelengths are not on the scale of molecular dimensions. Instead, the chemical effects of ultrasound derive from several nonlinear acoustic phenomena, of which cavitation is the most important.

Acoustic cavitation is the formation, growth, and implosive collapse of bubbles in a liquid irradiated with sound or ultrasound. When sound passes through a liquid, it consists of expansion (negative pressure) waves and compression (positive pressure) waves. These cause bubbles (which are filled with both solvent and solute vapour and with previously dissolved gases) to grow and recompress.

Under proper conditions, acoustic cavitation can lead to implosive compression in such cavities. Such implosive bubble collapse produces intense local heating, high pressures, and very short life-times. Cavitation is an extraordinary method of concentrating the diffused energy of sound into a chemically useable form.

Ultrasonication provides the mechanical energy for mixing and the required activation energy for initiating the transesterification reaction.

Low-frequency ultrasonic irradiation is useful tool for emulsification of immiscible liquids. The collapse of the cavitation bubbles disrupts the phase boundary and causes emulsification, by ultrasonic jets that impinge one liquid on another.

Lubrication effect in a DI engine when using Vegetable Oils

Vegetable oils consist of triglycerides, which are esters derived from glycerol and three fatty acids. These types of oils are often unsaturated. This means that some of the carbons form double bonds with other carbons instead of bonding with hydrogen. The double bond region is chemically active and can react with other molecules in the oil or with oxygen from the surrounding air.

There are two negative aspects of these reactions:

- Acidic substances that may form can cause corrosion of the surfaces in contact, and

- Οxidized molecules are deposited in engines.

Vegetable oils do have an advantage compared to mineral oils:

- A vegetable oil molecule has a polar part, which can add to metal surfaces. These molecules form a protective layer that resembles a shag carpet and they are well suited for use in boundary lubrication applications.

Diesel fuel lubricity and the benefits of blending with Biodiesel

Lubricity is the ability of a liquid to provide hydrodynamic and/or boundary lubrication to prevent wear between moving parts. Lubricity can also be defined as the ability to reduce friction between solid surfaces in relative motion or the quality that prevents wear when two moving metal parts come in contact with each other.

Although the viscosity of diesel fuel was believed to be related to lubricity, many researchers suggested that the lubricity of the fuel is not provided by fuel viscosity. Researchers found that lubricity is provided by other components of the fuel such as “polycyclic aromatic types with sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen content.” Oxygen and nitrogen were shown to impart natural lubricity in diesel fuel. Oxygen definitely contributes to the natural lubricity of diesel fuel, but that nitrogen is a more active lubricity agent than oxygen. Diesel fuels that are high in sulfur but low in nitrogen exhibit poor lubricity.

Lowering sulfur or aromatics might not lower fuel lubricity. However, hydrotreating is documented as lowering the lubricity of diesel fuel. The special hydrotreating that is used to reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel also lowers the lubricity of the diesel fuel. The components: oxygen and nitrogen may be rendered ineffective as a result of severe hydrotreatment to desulfurize the fuel.

It is important to note that some fuel injection system diesel engines rely entirely upon diesel fuel to lubricate the moving parts that operate with close tolerances under high temperatures and high pressure. Rotary distributor injection pumps manufactured by several companies are most susceptible to boundary lubrication wear.

The ways to evaluate the lubricity of a fuel include the following:

(i) vehicle test,

(ii) fuel-injection test equipment bench test, and

(iii) a laboratory test.

The least expensive and most time-efficient of these tests is the laboratory lubricity test.

Fuel-injection equipment tests require 500–1000 h of closely monitored operations. On road vehicle tests require a similar period of time (500–1000 h). The laboratory lubricity test provides a low-cost, accurate evaluation, in <1 wk.

The ASTM D 975 standard specification for diesel-fuel oils does not include a specification for lubricity.

The ASTM D 6078 standard for lubricity is agreed upon by some engine manufacturers in Europe. These companies have selected test procedures to evaluate the lubricating quality of diesel fuel.

The addition of biodiesel, even in very small quantities, has been shown to provide increases in fuel lubricity using a variety of bench scale test methods. Even a small amount of Biodiesel means cleaner emissions and better engine lubrication. Just 1% Biodiesel added to petro-diesel will increase lubricity by 65%, reducing mechanical problems and enhancing the life and efficiency of the engine.

The Commission Approach to EU Produced Biofuels

The Commission released the study “The Land Use Change Impact of Biofuels consumed in the EU “ on 10^th March 2016. The study was prepared by a consortium of consultancies, IIASA, Ecofys and E4Tech who used a ”tailored version of the GLOBIOM model” to measure land use impacts of EU biofuel policies. It was delivered to the Commission at least six months prior to its release, and possibly much longer since it was supposed to be released to the public over a year ago, specifically to inform public biofuels debates.

The manner in which the Commission suppressed the Globiom Study speaks to a pattern of behaviour that falls well short of the standards that citizens and Member States should have the right to expect from the EU.

More importantly, the study itself raises major questions about the manner in which the European Commission has dealt with the ‘biofuels dossier’. It, in particular, brings sharply into focus the attitudes of those within the Commission who framed and drafted the 2012 amendments.

The findings in the study support the case made by opponents of the EU Commission’s position during the debate on the “ILUC Directive”

Coming as it does at a time when the Commission is in the process of offering non EU countries 12% of the EU market for ethanol as part of the Mercosur trade talks, release of the study also raises questions at to the level of coordination across different policy areas within the Commission.

The Globiom study raises disturbing questions about the degree to which the Commission fulfilled its legal duty to base policy proposals on ‘best available science’. It demonstrates that

·            Conventional ethanol feedstocks, such as sugar and starch crops, have low land use change impacts, which is consistent with previous ‘best available science’,

·             Cellulosic ethanol feedstocks similarly have a low or even positive LUC impact,

·    Land use change impacts and associated emissions can be much lower if:   a) abandoned land in the EU is used for biofuels production, b) biofuel demand is covered by yield increases.

§   

None of these points were recognised in the amendments to the RED which the Commission put forward in 2012. And yet, each of these points was already evident in 2012 in what was then the ‘best available science’.

Nevertheless, in 2012, the Commission falsely claimed, with no scientific evidence (and in fact with all the evidence pointing in the other direction), that conventional ethanol was no different than biodiesel and subjected it to the same regulatory treatment. Subsequent to the circulation of the 2012 proposals Commission staff indicated that – while the 2012 proposals did not have scientific foundation with respect to ethanol – they were confident that their anti-ethanol views would be vindicated in time by science.

The Globiom study, far from supporting the then view of Commission staff, validates the case made by European ethanol producers that the crude and undifferentiated approach adopted by the Commission wilfully ignored the reality that EU Member States have a huge unrealised capacity to produce low ILUC bioethanol. It also highlights the stark difference between bureaucrats who respect science and those with the hubris to believe that they can fund studies to make it appear that their particular ambitions have the support of science.

The Globiom Study identifies palm oil as a major issue (and one far removed from the world of ethanol’s impacts). Palm oil and its environmental impact were much discussed during the debate on the ‘ILUC directive’. The Globiom study sees the impact of palm oil as not attributable solely to EU biodiesel, but due to all uses, and likely much more by non-fuel uses. This is an important result as during the debate on biofuels proponents of action against ‘first generation’ biofuels sought to lay the blame for problems relating to palm oil ‘at the door’ of EU biodiesel consumption and were supported in so doing by the Commission. Indeed, the two major funders of the palm-oil centric attacks by NGOs on biofuels (not even biodiesel, but quite illogically on both biodiesel and ethanol) were Norwegian state funds and the EU Commission.

While the Globiom study may provide an argument for either limiting or banning palm oil from the EU for all uses on climate grounds, it certainly does not provide any basis at all for limiting the use of ethanol to displace fossil fuel in Europe in furtherance of climate ambitions.

Not only has the Commission based its approach on selective science but its behaviour on the biofuels dossier has lacked openness and transparency:

·         The Commission’s 2012 proposals were nominally based on research by the International Food Policy Research Institute [the IFPRI Study], then the ‘best available science’, but in fact directly contradicted both the context and actual findings of that science,

·         The ‘consultation’ process which preceded the 2012 proposals was improperly conducted; in an extraordinary departure from good administrative practice stakeholders were misled by the Commission:

·         In December 2010, the Commission indicated that it was considering four options to meet the requirements in the 2008 Renewable Energy Directive.

·         Late in 2012 the Commission for the first time indicated that it had decided on a fifth course of action.

·         The Commission held no prior consultation on this additional course of action: the fifth option was tacked onto an impact assessment at the eleventh hour compromising the impact assessment process which is painfully anyone who cares to re-read the 2011 impact assessment at this point.

·          As late as February 2012 (after that fifth option had been selected) one company which was committed to making a number of major investments in ethanol production in the EU was given a specific undertaking by DG Energy that ‘no adverse change in the regulatory environment would occur’. That undertaking proved false. That investor relying on everything that was publicly available went ahead with the investment and as a consequence suffered immense financial losses.

·     The Commission’s behaviour with the Globiom study is another example of extraordinary administrative misbehaviour. The study was received by the Commission in August 2015 (a date which was in all peobability itself delayed by Commission actions ) and not released until March 2016. The study’s release came only after a number of parliamentary questions were tabled on it in the EU Parliament, after MEPs from the most negatively impacted MS wrote to Commission President Juncker requesting access to it and after a formal complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman in response to DG Energy’s nonsensical claim to a stakeholder in December that releasing the report was impossible because it would damage the Commission’s ability to conduct foreign relations. This is not the open and transparent approach promised by the current Commission at the outset of its mandate.

·                 In November 2015 the Commission announced its intention to “consult stakeholders and citizens on the new renewable energy directive (REDII) for the period 2020-2030”. The Consultation period ran from 10^th November 2015 to 10^th February 2016. The Commission had the Globiom Study in its possession throughout that period but refused to allow access to the study. Withholding the study, which the Commission stated was specifically intended to be used for the policy development that was the subject of the consultation from stakeholders, including MEPs, makes a mockery of the ‘consultation’ process. Again there is a pattern of maladministration here  — the ‘consultation’ on the 2012 proposals to amend the RED were also rendered moot by the fact that the Commission having “consulted” on four options for action based its legislative proposals on a fifth course of action on which there had been zero consultation.

With the right policies Europe’s farmers in partnership with local bio-ethanol producers could:

·         Help cut Europe’s dependence on imported fossil fuels by producing clean renewable ‘home-grown’ energy and could do so in a way that is demonstrably ILUC free,

·         Boost farm incomes and encourage the type of productivity gains in EU agriculture that have been sought for years,

·   Create investment opportunities that support rural economies and reverse rural depopulation,

·         Bring jobs to areas that need work and,

·         Cut Europe’s need to import animal foodstuffs.

The changes brought about by the ‘ILUC Directive’ negatively impact on this potential.

The changes also impair Europe’s efforts to cut GHG emissions. Latest scientific modelling shows that ethanol emits about half the GHG emissions of petrol. Transport is short of decarbonisation measures to meet the 2 degrees global warming target; yet, inexplicably – some might say perversely – the EU Commission has set its face against a cleaner energy mix involving ethanol.

Moreover, the ‘ILUC Directive’ is only one prong of the Commission’s crusade against ethanol. In 2013, the Commission declared state aid to bioethanol to be illegal. State aid to drill a new oil well or mine coal would be just fine. But state aid for the production of 90% GHG savings ethanol must be prevented. The only reason given when the Commission is approached is that there is too much unused ethanol production capacity in the EU, a point returned to below.

When the Commission’s 2012 proposals were under discussion the CEO of Spain’s Abengoa, one of Europe’s biggest ‘green’ power groups described the legislative wrangle in which the the Commission had landed the EU in ‘ridiculous’. He warned of the danger that the EU biofuel industry would be turned into a ‘zombie industry’.

Tragically his warnings were correct. The changes that the Commission steered through have already had a visibly chilling effect on investment in the sector, have impacted negatively on a number of European operators – including Abengoa itself – and have led to viable projects being cancelled.

Future perspectives for biofuels in road transport

The promotion of biofuels is a political priority and part of the European energy-climate policy. The EC Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources introduced a binding target of 10 % share of renewable energy in transport by 2020. For this target, biofuels will make a substantial contribution. In addition, Directive 2009/30/EC allows for the blending of ethanol into petrol up to 10 % (v/v) and for a FAME content of 7 % (v/v) in diesel.

In 2013, the European Parliament stated its intention to place a 6 % cap on first-generation biofuels and a 2.5 % incorporation threshold of advanced biofuels, produced from waste or algae, but these initial ambitions were cut down in the draft directive on the change of land use (June 2014). This agreement imposes a minimum level of 7 % of final energy consumption in transport in 2020 for first-generation biofuels and does not provide for a binding incorporation target for advanced second and third generation biofuels. The agreement is still in a draft version, a final decision is expected for 2015 (EurObserv’ER 2014).

Future expansion of biofuels in road transport up to 2020 and beyond depends on a favourable regulatory environment for advanced biofuels value chains, in particular to support:

·   availability of more diverse feedstocks including energy crops, wastes and residues

· demonstration of innovative thermochemical, biochemical and chemical conversion technologies at commercial scale

·  market development of advanced biofuels through support mechanisms at national and EC level

Global expansion of biofuels use in road transport also depends on the ongoing development of:

·   CI and DI engines able to use higher blends of ethanol and diesel

· the development of drop-in biofuels with properties 'near-identical' to their fossil fuel counterparts. Drop-in fuels can be used in standard engines at much higher blend levels than conventional biofuels, or even at 100% with similar performance.