Red Diesel

[Latestarter1]

Apologies, for ethanol read biodiesel/FAME... late night typing and all that!

However, FAME - the process very basically of breaking down the fatty acids means the addition or creation of an alcohol. Fatty-acid methyl ester is 'transesterified' using methanol (almost identical properties to ethanol).FAME does however have a lower oxidation stability than petro-diesel which give excellent conditions for bacterial growth. FAME should not be used in applications of 'low' useage, amd although we have had to live with the ruling that SFGO is to be used for Inland Waterways and vessels that DO NOT go to sea, it does NOT apply to sea going leisure boats.

Many insurance companies now will not cover damages as a result of bacterial growth, so Latestarter1 please explain why even some 'named' engine manufacturers will invalidate engine warranties (BMF News article) where 'high' FAME (7%) content fuel has been used and has caused engine issues and why you seem to miss the point that it has been proven over and over again that straight from the pump road fuel is often problematic in marine applications due to the time it spends in the tanks - especially over winter periods. As a diesel engineer I would have hoped you wold have explained that a little more.

You are right in saying that 'red' diesel is often road fuel that is marked, however, most of the marine outlets we use guarantee FAME free fuel.

I do stand by my statement though, inevitably we will be forced into using road fuel as our primary fuel in the future. And as far as fuel directives go, marine engines are tabled to adhere to Euro Cat levels in the coming years also

Also as for your 'over used' 'turkeys voting for christmas' comment, if you honestly believe this change of wording in the HMRC proposed directive will do anything other than distance them from a possible legal challenge from the EU, then think again. I do not need to quote numbers and figures, just understand the basic premise of why this change in wording has been suggested... It changes nothing in what we are doing? (RYA / MBY) It most certainly does if other EU members chose to interpret the ruling differently, it criminalises British boaters who chose to venture to neighbouring countries with marked fuel bought in the UK despite what duty is paid.

#1 We have done the FAME 'thing' to death, yes process where fatty-acid methyl ester is transesterified uses methanol which is used up in the process. FAME sold to refiners is ethanol free.

#2 No fuel is actually FAME free, if you look at specs of fuels which claim be they are not and cannot be FAME free, we have been suffering from contamination of airo engine fuels with FAME since 2009, nasty stuff contaminates manifolds in refineries. Spec sheet slight of hand, low level FAME equalls no fame get it. BP oil spill is getting ALL the blame for wiping out fish stocks in Gulf of Mexico. Actually huge damage being done by cultivation of crops for biofuel production using petroleum based nitrogen fertilisers washing off into Mississippi. Decent filteration goes a huge way to mitigating effects of FAME, remember it is not FAME on its own which causes the problems it is FAME plus water.

#3 Insurance companies stopped paying out on bacterial growth claims years ago following large claims from fuel retailers, turns out that significant contamination come from refineries where dormant spores contaminate storeage tanks. Therfore insurance companies refuse to underwrite the risk.

#4 Road fuel and NRMM fuel is the same. Bosch draw the line at 7% FAME this is not a high level, some manufacturers approve higher levels due to political pressure even though they use Bosch fuel systems for example Cummins approves up to B20. Nobody precludes 7%. Have no clue regarding BMF article, no evidence in any techical papers regarding reported engine damage and low level FAME. Remember when you are getting FAME in road fuel you are only getting around 3% as RTFO aggregates out with gasoline and refiners make up the difference by dumping cheaper methanol in. Reported problems more likely to simple 'dock talk' from numpty technically inept reporters.

#5 'And as far as fuel directives go, marine engines are tabled to adhere to Euro Cat levels in the coming years also'. Have absolutely no clue by what you mean by this statement.

#5 Yes turkeys..........Proir to the end of our derogation the industry consultation process revealed huge damage to our leasure industy if boaters were denied access to red diesel. Accept the situation or lose access to convienient fuel supplies. Following enquires by the likes of DAKA French do not appear to give a toss, if they do turn turtle as a result of all this fuss we have only ourselves to blame, accept the fine as a 'criminal' and put it down to a tax.

 

[MY littlebirchwoo]

Actually now I totally agree with you, and I know it is your field of expertise so was a little confuesed by your original posts. I totally agree that we only have 'ourselves' to blame but, going back to the point of the post, HMRC also have to accept they have a hand in it and not pass it on.

Euro Cat - My lovely new Volvo magazine says that all marine engines will be Euro V / Euro VI compliant within the coming years (Although this relates purely to emmission levels I believe?). So next to our new 'white diesel' pump we'll have an AdBlue point as well no doubt! I edited that sentence and apologise that it didn't make a whole heap of sense!

So Latestarter1 - An excellent reply from you and one I will refer to in the future no doubt. The old BMF article by the way, I will dig up the link/reference later after SWBO has dragged me around Tesco.

 

[Latestarter1]

Looks like we are in violent agreement.

EPA Tier III, which obviously has to form basis of RCD II can be done without any form of aftertreatment. Cummins QSB Tier III had just been released and Volvo released D6 400 last year, which I have concluded IS Tier III hardware with a Tier II software calibration lobbed in to ECU.

Please do not get too involved in comparing industrial emissions with automotive, we do not want to be that clean. Industrial emissions have big focus on Nox and I suspect we will need Selective Catalytic Reduction for Tier IV mandating use of pee in separate tank.

 

[ian38_39]

You are obviously expert in you field but from issued press releases I was under the impression that road diesel could contain up to 30% bio. Is this not the case?
If it is then surely there is a different spec for inland red and is this not the fuel that is now being used for coastal marinas where fame free is being claimed.
Concerning red again only from what I can gleen but for coastal boats is it not the case that there is no requirement for this to be ultra low sulphur.
If both the above are true then marine fuel is a separate fuel and is dyed to show this.

Yes it would need negotiation but a common approach and a common coloured dye to identify this specification across Europe would seem justified.

May be in cloud Cuckoo land but the EU are not going to leave red alone just because HMRC declare it is only for use in UK waters. They will still work to have it removed from use.

 

[ian38_39]

OK, what about this one.

Does anyone know if roadside checks in the UK automatically check for chemical markers rather than just dye?

If they do then why do they need to put a dye in UK marine fuel?

Class ULSD FAME free as marine use only and put a chemical marker in it but leave it white. That way you still couldn't use it in a car, although I am sure there would still be a few people caught with it until word got round but it could then justifiably be charged at minimum propulsion rate duty.

 

[maby]

OK, what about this one.

Does anyone know if roadside checks in the UK automatically check for chemical markers rather than just dye?

If they do then why do they need to put a dye in UK marine fuel?

Class ULSD FAME free as marine use only and put a chemical marker in it but leave it white. That way you still couldn't use it in a car, although I am sure there would still be a few people caught with it until word got round but it could then justifiably be charged at minimum propulsion rate duty.

There are no "chemical markers" currently added despite rumours to the contrary. The fuel marking directive clearly defines what is the correct dye - which is a derivative of analine and it is a single compound. It makes provision for the move to, or addition of other "markers" if technology advances to the point where it becomes feasible to remove the dye to a sufficient level to fail the tests.

I would assume that the revenue would be unhappy about any scheme that removed the coloured dye - it is convenient for a quick visual check without having to lug around a full lab kit.

 

[ian38_39]

But it is only HMRC that dip tanks and how difficult can it be to check for a chemical marker?

 

[maby]

But it is only HMRC that dip tanks and how difficult can it be to check for a chemical marker?

It's a lot faster to just hold a test tube up to the light than it is to carry out almost any chemical reaction?

 

[SolentPhill]

OK, what about

If they do then why do they need to put a dye in UK marine fuel?

.

Cause if it had no dye in it and you paid 70p a litre, you fill your boat up and then put it in your car, or you ring the suppliers and ask for 1000 ltr of White and say it's for marine use and then put it in your car.

 

[ian38_39]

But it would be chemically marked so if your tank was dipped it would show up.
Not many people can see what colour the fuel in your tank is while you are driving along.
The only time anyone would know is when the tank is specifically checked as long as the chemical test is quick it is no different.

 

[Latestarter1]

OK, what about this one.

Does anyone know if roadside checks in the UK automatically check for chemical markers rather than just dye?

If they do then why do they need to put a dye in UK marine fuel?

Class ULSD FAME free as marine use only and put a chemical marker in it but leave it white. That way you still couldn't use it in a car, although I am sure there would still be a few people caught with it until word got round but it could then justifiably be charged at minimum propulsion rate duty.

ULSD would attact higher rate of duty than road fuel and as to using it in car with DPF would have potentially catostrophic effects.

This is all silly semantics.

 

[ian38_39]

I was under the impression that all road fuel and the new marine fuel was already ultra low sulphur.

Is dpf the chemical marker? And if so what effects would it have and would they be the same in any engine?

Not pretending to be an expert just looking for solutions.

 

[PaulGooch]

I was under the impression that all road fuel and the new marine fuel was already ultra low sulphur.

Is dpf the chemical marker? And if so what effects would it have and would they be the same in any engine?

Not pretending to be an expert just looking for solutions.

DPF is the particulate filter system that many modern diesel cars have.

 

[Latestarter1]

I was under the impression that all road fuel and the new marine fuel was already ultra low sulphur.

Is dpf the chemical marker? And if so what effects would it have and would they be the same in any engine?

Not pretending to be an expert just looking for solutions.

Cor this is hard work!

Road fuel was until spring 1999 500 ppm sulphur when we made a major change (ahead of the rest of EU) to 50 ppm and new BS EN590 standard was issued for the fuel known as ULSD denoting the reduction from 500 ppm to less than 50 ppm. The old 500 ppm fuel had higher rate of duty.

Sweden was already using fuel with less than 10 ppm of sulphur which used to be called 'City diesel'. At 10 ppm sulphur levels almost impossibe to detect and is mandadory for any engine fitted with a DPF as sulphur poisons the substrate in the filter.

Several years ago road fuel switched from 50 ppm ULSD to the less than 10 ppm fuel know Virtually Sulphur Free. With the introduction of Tier II emissions under the NRMM directive as of January 1 2011 commercial gas oil adopted the same sulphur standard as road fuels. It is now illegal to sell anything other than 10 ppm commercial fuel into the NRMM market. Legislation to switch rail industry over to Virtually Sulphur Free diesel has been pre-empted by a natural migration ahead of legislation. Why, production of ULSD is pretty much dead. Issue is that road diesel comes subject to RTFO obligation of FAME.

As commercial NRMM fuel and road fuel are to pretty much the same standard economy of scale makes sense to use the same base fuel, issue is the FAME content of road fuel mandated by the RTFO which wound everybody up back in 2010 over downgrading road fuel to NRMM fuel by adding dye once loaded on to tanker.

Economy of scale also dictates that with the exeption of Southampton area specific 'marine fuels' with no FAME ( In reality a misleading statement ) are almost impossible to obtain.

I want access to lowest cost base fuel not bespoke marine fuels. By the way in my book anything other than Virtually Sulphur Free fuel should carry higher rate of duty!! We already have the solution, ready access to sources of commercial dyed fuel, any other 'solution' will cost us dear in terms of fuel availability as well as cost per liter.

We did this to death about 18 months ago, where were you?

Please please please this is the last time there is ANY reference to ULSD.

 

[PaulGooch]

We already have the solution, ready access to sources of commercial dyed fuel, any other 'solution' will cost us dear in terms of fuel availability as well as cost per liter.

Unfortunately, the EU directive says we cannot use dyed fuel and the Belgians are making a fuss. I think we're also prevented from charging different duty rates for the same fuel ?

I thought my solution was simple enough. Use the same fuel that we are using now, but dyed a different colour. Red diesel for tractors etc and orange for boats. The commercials can use either, without paying the duty (or reclaiming the duty on orange).

Stops the Belgians from moaning that they can't tell if the red in boats is legit UK (duty paid) fuel or tractor diesel and allows for the orange "marine fuel" to be charged the minimum rate of duty.

 

[ian38_39]

OK so I am misinformed of the terms but what I was intending to say was basically low sulphur (allegedly) FAME free fuel is already produced for the marine industry. It is available inland at most decent marinas so there is already a supply which I assume would get easier not harder if it was adopted at all coastal locations.

The fact that it is FAME free (Allegedly) is what differentiates it from road fuel and as such justify's a separate status, Exactly as in Paul's post above, and Pauls post also gives the only workable solution to let everyone walk away a winner, that would be except the Belgium's and EU commission anyway.

If you replace the coloured marker with a chemical marker then the whole issue of what colour it is goes away so even the Belgium's can't complain.

The EU can't complain as it is a different fuel than that sold in the UK for road use and can not be used in road vehicles due to the Chemical Marker, making it possible to set minimum EU duty rates. The Belgiums can't complain as it would be White in colour, the UK gov would set minimum duty rates and have all the moaning and often well connected leisure boaters off their back and UK diesel boaters could buy 100% tax paid fuel at as low a cost as was legally possible.

Then watch the inland or saily's screw it up by trying to claim lower duty on their domestic percentage.

 

[PaulGooch]

Then watch the inland or saily's screw it up by trying to claim lower duty on their domestic percentage.

Nothing to stop anyone using red or kerosene for non propulsion purposes, in a different tank.