On 8^th November 2000, HM Government threw down the gauntlet with the following words –

The government does not currently have a sustainable transport fuel policy.

"Transport" includes trains, boats, ships and aeroplanes, as well as the road transport on which attention has become fixed. Currently, most forms of transport depend on a non-sustainable energy source – fossil oil.

Given the restrictions placed on the scope of the promised tax concession, this paper will therefore concentrate on the subject of road transport and the means of propulsion.

T L de Winne

Northern Ireland

January 2001

terry@biofuels.fsnet.co.uk

Home page

1. The most practical and sustainable alternative transport fuel is straight vegetable oil.

2. This fuel should be introduced over the next five years by retrofitting agricultural vehicles and machinery, and public transport and military vehicles with the modified engine and fuel system required.

3. This programme could fall under the existing Powershift scheme.

4. An accelerated development programme for a British multi-fuel engine conversion is required.

5. Biodiesel is the second most practical alternative fuel. Production methods are fully developed and the fuel may be used in existing, unmodified engines. It could be available in the UK in significant quantities within six months of the announcement of a fuel tax concession and in full-scale production within three years. The "ethical switch" of recovered vegetable oil, from being used as an animal feed supplement to the production of biodiesel, would be enabled without causing a serious waste problem.

6. The large scale production of organic methanol and ethanol should be actively promoted, as means of producing biodiesel, fuel additives and, for ethanol, as a transport fuel in its own right.

7. The production of methane should be encouraged, both from waste and from organic matter, for use as a transport fuel to replace a significant amount of LPG and CNG fossil fuels.

8. The NFFO successor should be simplified and streamlined in order to efficiently use the by-products of the vegetable oils – mainly straw and seedcake. The programme funding should be quadrupled. (As an aside, it is also considered that additional provision should be made for large-scale tidal barrier schemes. These are dependable sources of power that would have the effect of making electric vehicles (EVs) less polluting and make viable the sustainable production of hydrogen.)

9. Development programmes should be initiated in support of the commercial production of oils from algae and enzyme processes of biofuel production.

10. A development programme may be initiated to produce an advanced concept continuous processing biodiesel plant.

11. A revised administration, covering all practical aspects of energy and transport fuels, is required.

12. Additional funding of £60m should be made available over the next two financial years (2001/2) to subsidise the capital costs associated with the developments proposed. (Together with funding of £1bn over the next five years for tidal barrage and new hydro schemes.)

13. The additional cost to the Exchequer from fuel tax reductions is estimated to rise to £132m by 2005, given 400,000 tonnes production at an average concession of 30p per litre.

14. A biofuels education and information centre should be set up, based on an existing facility.

15. These developments should be considered as job creation schemes, and income from taxation on earnings and reductions in benefits paid should be used in calculating the overall cost to the Exchequer. The creation of 20,000 jobs is estimated within five years, covering all socio-economic sectors.

1. The fuel must be ecologically sustainable.

2. It must be intrinsically safe for carriage, storage and handling.

3. Production of the fuel must be environmentally sound and produce no pollution.

4. Production of the fuel must be energy positive – that is, the production process should not consume more energy than that produced at the wheels, other than to utilise an existing supply surplus.

5. The energy density of the fuel must be such that sufficient may be carried on the vehicle to achieve a reasonable travelling distance before refuelling.

6. Using the fuel should produce no pollution.

7. The means of using the fuel should produce no pollution.

8. The fuel and its means of use should be cost-effective, comparable but not necessarily competitive with petroleum fuels at today’s prices.

9. The infrastructure required to deliver the fuel to point of use must be cost-effective.

Fossil Fuels not considered

On the grounds that they are both non-sustainable and that they produce significant amounts of greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide), the "alternative" energy sources of LPG (liquid petroleum gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas) are not included in this paper. They contribute to climate change, even though they have been championed by government on the basis of causing less toxic tailpipe emissions than petrol or petrodiesel fuels.

Where relevant they, and other fuels, will be used as familiar benchmarks to illustrate comparisons.

The same pollution limitations will apply to methane hydrate, when available.

 

The three alternative fuels considered as sustainable road transport motive power are –

"off-peak" electricity used in battery-powered electric vehicles;

surplus energy or organic hydrogen used with internal combustion engines and fuel cells;

the organically produced biofuels - alcohols, methane, straight vegetable oils and biodiesel.

This word is misunderstood and, most often, misused.

The most familiar definition is "for ever and ever, amen".

"Sustainable development" is not possible without the introduction of sustainable transport fuels.

Despite strenuous efforts during the course of over 15 years by HMG to promote the generation of electricity from renewable resources, by 1997 only 3% of the total UK generating capacity could be classified as "sustainable". That is, generated by infinitely renewable resources. However, any excess overnight generation capacity – particularly from nuclear power (26% of UK supply) - may be stored beneficially in the batteries of vehicles.

For this reason, and also their ability to offer zero pollution at the point of use, battery electric vehicles have been included in this survey. "Renewables" will play their part in due course, given a better deal.

HYDROGEN CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED A VIABLE SUSTAINABLE FUEL IN THE UK.

It is a secondary fuel, which requires a primary source of energy to produce.

It is currently manufactured by steam reforming of irreplaceable "natural" gas, the partial oxidation from heavy fuel oil or coal, chlorine-alkaline electrolysis or low pressure water electrolysis.

Only the latter process could be considered sustainable (water contains 11.2% hydrogen), using a limitless supply of hydro-electricity or, in the case of Iceland, geothermal energy. It may be possible in the long-term future to produce hydrogen economically from algae, seaweed or organically produced methane via semi-permeable membrane technology, though any advantages are doubtful.

UK availability in environmentally sustainable quantities is not feasible in the foreseeable future. A more realistic approach is required, rather than the current idealistic hydrogen economy theory.

Biofuels include –

Ethanol (ethyl alcohol; distillation from energy crops or residues)

Methanol (methyl alcohol; wood alcohol; pyrolysis from energy crops or waste)

Methane (gas; bacteriological decomposition from landfill sites, sewage sludge, etc)

Vegetable oils (rape, hemp, sunflower, soy, palm, olive, etc.)

Biodiesel (transesterified vegetable oil, manufactured with organically produced alcohols)

All of these fuels are ecologically sustainable in the true meaning of the word.

In real terms, there is a safety hazard associated with the "carriage" of electricity from the power station to the consumer via the high tension grid and at the point of use. However, the widespread introduction of electric vehicles would not increase the risk appreciably beyond the existing mortality rate.

The associated hazard is in the recycling of storage batteries, which is necessary three or four times during the life of the vehicle. These range from the highly toxic lead acid cell to the less harmful nickel metal hydride. There is a hazard inherent in the liquid sodium used in the charged ZEBRA battery, but this is no higher than in petrol vehicles carrying an explosive mixture of air and vapour in the fuel tank.

An explosive substance in air, stored under extremely high pressure or by absorption in a metal hydride.

The explosive region is between 13% and 59% mix with air, which brings about the necessity for stringent safety precautions being taken during handling and storage. Leakages are highly susceptible to spark and fire risk (including static electricity), ignition requiring only 0.02 MJ of energy. A high degree of maintenance at all levels of storage and use is therefore required to ensure public safety.

The high pressure required for storage (175 bar – 2570 psi) requires a heavy cylinder which must be able to withstand a high-speed impact without fracture. Failures would be disastrous.

Both ethyl and methyl alcohols are of similar safety hazard. Highly volatile (BP 78.3⁰C; 64.6⁰C; petroleum 27⁰C), flashpoints are also low, but comparable with petroleum for fire and explosion hazard. Existing fuel safety precautions, therefore, would be little changed.

Ethanol is neither toxic nor cumulative if ingested (though unsteadiness may occur at low levels)

Methanol is a lethal, cumulative neurotoxin liquid and may be absorbed by both respiration and skin absorption. It is considered unsuitable for self-service at filling stations.

Methane is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas, which is also the major component of CNG. It requires only 0.29 mJ energy to ignite, with an explosive concentration in air of 5 to 13%. This is 15 times the energy required to ignite a hydrogen/air mixture, but far lower levels of concentration are required. It is non-toxic and carries the same safety precautions as any of the liquefied gases currently dispensed from pressurised containers.

Vegetable oils and biodiesel are biodegradable, non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic and non-allergenic. (This is of considerable ecological advantage when considering the pollution that has been caused by petrofuels following large-scale marine oil spills – vegetable oils having been used to clean up oil slicks.) Flash point (PMCC) is around 179⁰C (diesel fuel 74⁰C), which means that the transport, storage and use fire hazard is far below any other currently available liquid transport fuel.

The varied generation mix in the UK and the contribution of less than 3% by renewables produces a very high pollution level of some 600 gms of CO2 per kWh, plus the other pollutants which go to make up the 30% or so total emissions contribution from electricity generation (DETR). These include carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, methane, volatile organic compounds, particulates and nuclear waste.

However, due to excess generating capacity overnight, when many generators may not be fully run down, the use of EVs to absorb this is a benefit not to be overlooked, particularly if arterial road lighting is reduced to compensate for the battery storage capacity.

The government currently has no plans to replace existing nuclear generation capacity, nor for large-scale hydro or tidal power schemes. As a result, pollution from electricity generation is set to increase by 2010 (DETR), which must bring into question the adequacy of current energy policies.

Large scale production is not feasible in the UK due to the low availability of non-polluting energy resources.

Growing biofuels should be considered essentially non-polluting in the longer term, given proper agricultural and process management. In addition, by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, energy crops act as a carbon sink throughout the year. This is released only when the fuel is used or the by-products burned. Longer term carbon sequestration is achieved through the roots and stubble of the plants being ploughed into the ground.

There is a wide range of plants available, world-wide, as oil-producing energy crops. The agricultural potential within the UK must be developed on a holistic and pro-active basis. One benefit of energy crops is usually overlooked – the oxygen by-product from photosynthesis!

Much comment has been made by ill-informed critics of the use of nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers, weed killers and pest control chemicals in causing pollution. The utilisation of both traditional and more recently developed techniques of crop rotation for annual and break crops (rather than the nutrient-sapping monoculture farming required for short rotation coppiced willow favoured by MAFF, for example) and the long-term cyclic planning required by energy crops largely overcomes this criticism. Usage of natural fertilisers (slurry, etc) has been ignored, both from the pollution and carbon dioxide savings potential. The risk of water pollution is also minimised by the retention of the nitrogen.

The life cycle CO₂ emissions figures put forward by DETR (30% to 50%) do not concur with any other study on the subject. Neither does the 55% figure used by Ecotec in their C1820 report. Given, in the latter study (p. 4, Table 2), the contributions of 61% from fertiliser application and a further 20% from farm machinery, this demonstrates the necessity for the adoption of "best practice" principles to be applied to any considerations regarding the level of total possible carbon savings.

Most life cycle analyses to be found are based on current farming practices, which should not be accepted as a valid comparison basis – there are more eco-friendly methods of farming, even if it means turning the clock back a few decades and combining this with an enhanced data base of information. For example, the use of straight vegetable oil in tractors and biodiesel in transportation reduces emissions significantly. A more positive approach is required, with less attention being paid to minor quibbles and inessentials.

There is the factor of environmental pollution caused by the distillation process used in the production of ethanol – the large amount of stillage or effluent produced is some 13 times the amount of ethanol produced and so becomes a waste disposal problem. Steps must be taken to absorb this organically at source or nearby to avoid transportation. Carbon dioxide emitted during fermentation must be recovered as a valuable by-product, so saving energy elsewhere. Fizzy drinks, for example.

The pyrolysis of wood to produce bio-oil or methanol also poses pollution problems - benzenes, NOx, SOx and aldehydes to name but a few. Advanced production techniques are required for all processes.

The large-scale production of bio-alcohols is necessary to replace the methanol currently used for the production of biodiesel. At present, most of this comes as a by-product from fossil fuels.

The production of biodiesel from recovered vegetable oil should be considered a waste treatment process and therefore wholly beneficial. There is no associated pollution. Much has been made of the so-called "dioxin scare" – a single instance of contamination in many decades of oil recovery, involving a few litres of transformer cooling oil. The health risk was minimal, compared with the possibility of spreading BSE prions through the use of contaminated meat in a hamburger, followed by the inclusion of the cooking oil in a large quantity of animal feedstuff – as is the current practice. The "ethical switch" is a valid option, now recognised.

For benchmark purposes, in round figure terms it takes 15% of the energy contained in the crude oil to produce refined petrofuels. This leaves only 87% available as an energy source, and creates 115% of "tailpipe" emissions – a factor omitted in a number of comparison studies.

Life cycle analyses have been produced for all of the electricity producers which show generating efficiencies lying between 30 and 60% energy positive. Taking into account line losses of up to 10% and charging losses of a further 12%, this reduces significantly the energy efficiency of producing the "fuel" for EVs from non-renewable resources.

However, given the use of "waste" overnight capacity, this objection may be discounted.

Produced electrolytically, hydrogen is an energy negative fuel. It requires 1.3kWh of electricity to produce 1kWh energy content of hydrogen (0.3kg) (Voigt), although there is also produced the valuable by-product, oxygen. Further energy (up to 0.3kWh) is then required to compress the gas into a reasonably sized storage container. It is therefore completely dependent on an immense supply of "free" electricity.

Energy efficiencies of other methods of production (algae, membranes, etc) are unavailable.

Ethanol may be produced from a wide variety of starch and sugar crops, plus agricultural and forestry residues, not just the sugar cane selected by Brazil as the primary feedstock. (Bio-ethanol comprises 45% of Brazil’s transport fuel, either as a 30% extender to petrol or as a 100% fuel.)

However, life cycle studies (US Dept of Ag)) show that the distillation process does consume a great deal of energy, the worst case being the production of ethanol from starch feedstocks. This uses 75% of the energy in producing the fuel, leaving a 25% energy positive process. From sugar based feedstocks, the yield is far greater. Enzyme processes are also being developed.

The same situation exists with the production of organic methanol, where pyrolysis reduces the efficiency to 40% energy positive.

Both of these processes may be improved by the holistic use of by-products – the burning of the grain straw, for example, to produce the heat required for ethanol distillation.

Methane is conventionally produced by the anaerobic decomposition of waste products, when around 25% of the energy produced is required to heat the reaction and to compress the gas for storage. This leaves production 75% energy positive.

Vegetable oil is the most energy positive fuel to produce, requiring only agricultural input and seed pressing. With 1 tonne of oil produced from rape per hectare (MAFF - UK average 1990/99), this gives an energy yield of 11MWh at a cost of 2MWh – a positive transport energy yield of 550%. (NB. Best Practice yields can improve this figure by over 60%)

Biodiesel may be made from straight vegetable oils, refined by transesterification to remove the waxes, glycerides and lacquers in order to make the fuel suitable for use in a standard diesel engine. This requires an energy input of up to 1MWh per hectare, a positive transport energy yield of over 375%. (There is an additional potential from the glycerol by-product.)

It is important to consider the total energy potential from the land area available. Using, for example, oilseed rape cake after pressing (2 tonnes per hectare) and the straw (4 tonnes) as fuel input for the production of electricity under the already established NFFO schemes, this gives a further renewable energy contribution of some 33MWh. (Total 42MWh per hectare). To this may be added the energy content of the break crops or, alternatively, the energy (and NOx emissions) saved by the use of intermediary nitrogen fixing crops in lieu of artificial fertilisers.

Comparing the benefits of this more integrated system, the annual yield of monoculture short rotation coppice willow is around 14 tonnes of dry matter per hectare on a three-year rotation basis. The energy content of this is 60MWh, but able only to be used by electric vehicles. Or Stanley Steam Cars.

These examples illustrate the dangers in accepting a single value for any parameters of energy production from biofuels – simply, there are too many variables which, in real terms, are unable to be accurately quantified. Agriculture is not an exact science.

Transport energy must be derived from a readily portable fuel source, inclusive of the means of carriage. In the case of both electricity and hydrogen, the sheer bulk and weight of the storage medium reduces the carrying capacity and increases the weight of the vehicle, leading to reduced vehicle efficiency.

The same parameters – to a lesser degree - also apply to methane, as the gas fuel system is additional to the conventional fuel system used by the vehicle.

The energy density of a lead acid battery is 0.03kWh per kg. With an energy requirement of around 0.25kWh per mile, a small passenger vehicle therefore requires 8kg of battery weight to travel a mile, even with regeneration. A 400kg battery (one-third the vehicle weight) gives a range of about 50 miles.

After 140 years of development effort, the most promising storage medium in sight is the ZEBRA sodium/nickel chloride battery, which has the capacity of 0.15kWh per kg. A 400kg battery extends the range to 250 miles. (AEG)

Hydrogen is the least dense of all the elements, requiring the greatest storage capacity. Under a pressure of 175 bar (2570 psi), a K size cylinder (230 x 1495 mm) weighing 65kg holds 7.2 cubic metres of gas with an energy content of 21.6kWh – less than half a gallon of petrol. (BOC)

Given the comparable limit of 400kg storage weight and a consumption of 24 "mpg", this gives a range of up to 72 miles.

Hydrogen may also be absorbed by a metal hydride, which results in an energy density of 0.58kWh per kg. The range would depend on the conversion efficiency of the vehicle drive train. (DETR)

The alcohol fuels have a lower energy density, but all are able to use the same fuel tank as fitted to conventional petrol or diesel vehicles. Vehicle range before refilling would be reduced from, say, 240 miles to 110. Ethanol may be added to petrol in any ratio as an oxygenator and an extender.

Ethanol – 5.7kWh per litre

Methanol – 4.4kWh

The penalty paid for using methane gas is the need for a supplementary pressurised container, which reduces load capacity significantly and increases the weight by some 25kg for a small family car.

Methane - 5.6kWh per litre (compressed)

Both vegetable oils and biodiesel have comparable energy contents to petrodiesel. (Virtually no loss of vehicle power is experienced, due to the higher lubricity of the fuels.)

Vegetable oil - 9.88kWh per litre vide University of Idaho

Biodiesel - 9.95kWh

(In 1892, when Dr Rudolph Diesel patented his engine, it ran on peanut oil.)

There is no such thing as a totally non-polluting transport fuel, taking into account the full life cycle of production and use. It is therefore a question of degree of acceptability when considering the potential for sustainable development. After all – who approved the use of petro-fuels?

Every tonne of fossil fuel burnt adds 3.26 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 18.7kg of carbon monoxide, 48kg of NOx/SOx and 19kg of HC/particulates to the atmosphere. (ETSU)

Many duplicated trials of EVs have been carried out, all over the world. A typical one is the well-documented Oxford Bus Trials, carried out from 1993 to 1995. This shows comparable emission figures of electric buses versus diesel powered buses. (Gms per kWh of energy used)

CO₂ CO NOx + SO2 HC Particulates

Electricity 481 0.08 5.24 0.08 0.09 (Generation emissions)

Diesel (DERV) 272 1.56 4.08 0.56 1.04 (Tailpipe emissions)

Electric vehicles are not as "clean" as often considered.

Also thought of as a totally non-polluting fuel, this is not the case if used in an internal combustion engine using an air manifold. Due to the high burning temperature of the fuel, large amounts of NOx gases are emitted. However, life cycle savings of 50% CO₂ could be possible. (CVTF)

The use of hydrogen-powered fuel cells, producing only water, is the current Holy Grail. Despite half a century of development, the technical and cost problems associated with the widespread use of both the fuel and the fuel cell mitigate against viability in the medium term future.

Methane (CH₄) is the principal constituent of "natural" gas, producing only carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water when burnt. Being a case of replacing one greenhouse gas with another, one justification for introducing the fuel is to use the energy content before the pollution is caused – i.e., to use waste products in the production process. It is also a sustainable fuel.

The efficiency (+10%) of fuel cells against IC engines – provided the cost factor is solved – could be beneficial in utilising this source of transport energy.

Ethanol, methanol, vegetable oil and biodiesel are all oxygenated fuels. That is, they contain oxygen in their molecular structure. This is significantly advantageous to the burning process in an internal combustion engine, not only in improving the efficiency of the fuel but also in turning noxious oxides into less harmful dioxides (carbon and nitrogen). This also applies when used as fuel extenders.

In addition, none of them contain any sulphur at all unless minute traces are acquired through crop dusting, acid rain during growth or contaminated alcohols used during manufacture. (NB. A number of trials carried out on biodiesel emissions have detected traces of sulphur attributed to contaminated methanol used in production, fossil based engine oil being scavenged into the combustion chamber or exhaust deposits being carried over from petrodiesel having been used in the engine.)

Ethanol (C₂H₅OH) and methanol (CH₃OH) are essentially benign fuels when (and if) burnt, subject to the foregoing.

Vegetable oils and biodiesel (approximately C₂₁H₃₈O₂) are complex organic compounds, but all contain the same essential ingredients. The emissions misinformation concerning biodiesel stems primarily from lack of knowledge of the physics of the burning, rather than the chemistry.

"Biodiesel produces more NOx emissions than petrodiesel." This is a correct statement, but only when 100% biodiesel (B100) is used in an engine which has been calibrated to use petrodiesel.

Biodiesel is a better burning fuel than petrodiesel, and has a higher cetane number. This is due to the molecular oxygen content of the fuel, which reacts under pressure and temperature faster than the subsequent fuel/air mixture. This causes the fuel to burn at a higher temperature, resulting in the formation of a higher level of nitrogen oxides. By simply retarding the fuel injection timing by two to three degrees (depending on the engine design), the burning temperature is reduced, thereby reducing the amount of NOx gases formed.

Many studies have been carried out, comparing the emissions from biodiesel with petrodiesel or a blend of both – they are quite compatible. Typically, the University of Missouri gives the following results –

"Biodiesel emissions data for a 6V92 TA Detroit Diesel Engine fuelled with a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel –

Work – Particulates CO₂ CO NOx Hydro-

HP/hr carbons

100% low sulphur diesel 20.92 0.261 664 1.67 4.46 0.45

80% LSD+20% biodiesel 20.72 0.216 676 1.5 4.25 0.38

and 3 degrees retarded

Energy level is 1% down; particulates are reduced by 17%; carbon dioxide is increased by 2% but monoxide is decreased by 10%; NOx is reduced by 4.7% and total hydro-carbons are reduced by 15%. Particulates were further reduced by the use of a platinum catalyst trap. These results were similar using a Cummins diesel engine."

The University of Idaho reported similar reductions, but increases in emissions of NOx. However, no injection timing adjustments were made to the engine –

100% D2 diesel 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

+50% biodiesel -4.1% -35.1% - -36.7% +2.9% -49.2%

100% biodiesel -7.7% -50.6% - -56.7% +5% -78.4%

This demonstrates the source of the criticism (rectified by 20 minutes work by a qualified diesel engineer), but also the significant reduction in carbon monoxide and particulates emissions. Both of these examples of the many, many trials carried out show the environmental benefits of using even a low percentage addition of biodiesel to petrodiesel.

Carbon dioxide emission from the use vegetable oil and biodiesel is substantially reduced, as one tonne of either replaces almost one tonne of fossil fuels.

The USA, following completion of the Environmental Protection Agency Tier I & II Trials, have adopted the B20 (20% mix) standard; France uses a 2% to 5% biodiesel additive to most of their petrodiesel, but this is mainly to compensate for the low lubricity of ULSD; Germany has mainly adopted 100% biodiesel due to their concessionary tax system. There are over 600 biodiesel pumps at German filling stations.

The subject of ultrafine particle emissions has only recently been raised as an additional issue. It must be said that no authority in the world has issued a seal of good housekeeping in respect of the widespread usage of petrodiesel, and yet we are constantly exposed to the adverse health effects of pollution on our roads and pavements. Given the exhaustive analysis of the effects of using sustainable alternatives – as reported by the EPA researches – we should not allow less substantial side issues to divert from the otherwise significant benefits of the fuels. The raising of this issue suggests that somebody, somewhere, is looking for another research project!

One major problem in the life cycle of an EV – the batteries will only tolerate a limited number of charge/discharge cycles before losing capacity. This will happen three or four times during the life of the vehicle. They then have to be recycled, with associated energy and emission costs.

Both lead acid and NiCd batteries are toxic.

Hydrogen No known problems, but this is not absolute!

Biofuels No known problems.

The cost of the vehicle itself is very little different from the cost of a conventional vehicle – the electric motor, vacuum pump, control gear and regenerating system replacing the IC engine and peripherals. Maintenance costs are lower. Battery charging systems are more complex than in the past, pulse charging giving a longer battery life, so more expensive. Vehicle excise duty is £45.

Additional to this is the cost of the storage batteries which, taking a small passenger vehicle as an example, will cost from £1200 for lead acid batteries giving a low range to £7500 for the vacuum flask encased ZEBRA nickel/sodium chloride unit.

Hence, the low user cost of running the vehicle from untaxed off-peak electricity (one eighth the cost of petrol) is drastically offset by the high initial capital outlay – a misleading economy.

Still under development, cost estimates are not to hand. The development of entirely new vehicles would be compensated for by the continual model development costs incurred by vehicle manufacturers

Fuel costs – a commercially available 7.2 cu m K size cylinder of hydrogen is currently £27.23. (BOC) This holds just 21kWh of energy, giving a range of about 18miles – some fifty times the running cost of petro-fuels (taxation excluded).

Ethanol – commercial cost £745 per tonne (NB – this is possibly an inflated quote, received recently but based on packaged delivery quantities, not bulk) – 58.8p per litre, giving 5.7kWh – five times the running cost of petrol (ex tax).

Methanol – commercial cost £190 per tonne – 15p per litre, giving 4.4 kWh – one and a three quarter times the running cost of petrol (ex tax).

Methane – as for CNG – the capital cost of vehicle conversion (about £1500 average); subsequently slightly cheaper running costs than petrol, but only due to a fuel tax concession. Otherwise, more expensive.

Vegetable oil. At present, the only conversion developed for the conventional diesel engine (Elsbett – German – which is why most German Army vehicles are able to run on straight vegetable oil) costs around £2000. Thereafter, (current) costs are reduced to oil at £320 a tonne – 29p per litre, which is 7p per litre above the pump price of ULSD (ex tax), raising cost to 25% above that of ULSD.

Biodiesel. No engine conversion (apart from timing, for B100 only) is required. Taking the German pump price of 48p per litre (zero tax) gives a running cost of just over twice that of ULSD (ex tax).

Given that the use of one tonne of vegetable oil saves around 900kg of petrodiesel which, in turn, saves about 800 kg of carbon, a reduction of 48.82p per litre in fuel tax would cost £440 per tonne.

If one tonne of biodiesel, whether made from fresh or recovered oil, replaces 800kg of petrodiesel, thereby saving 720kg of carbon, a reduction of 28.82p per litre would cost £230 per tonne.

Although these are only very approximate figures, these costs are less than a third of the figures put forward by DETR – further amplification is required, taking into account the further carbon savings from the agricultural Best Practice methods of production.

Currently available, but not accepted. Due to the limited range of the vehicles, it would be necessary to install charging points at daytime parking places to give a boost – not only to the batteries, but also to the confidence of the user. It is a feeling of insecurity that partly militates against public acceptance of electric vehicles as commuter vehicles. (de Winne)

Not practical in the foreseeable future. The high pressures involved would require heavy capital investment to install the distribution system required in order to satisfy any appreciable demand. Cylinder changes would be more practical, but physically demanding.

The refilling of metal hydride vehicle storage systems requires three couplings – the fuel, plus entry and exit for cooling, the absorption being exothermic. The process also takes 15 minutes. Not user friendly.

All biofuels are currently available, being virtually compatible with comparable conventional refuelling systems. Some components used in dispensing equipment (natural rubber) may need to be changed.

The DETR biodiesel "production" costs of 40p per litre from fresh oil and 28 - 30p per litre from recovered oil suggested by DETR are considered marginally low, based on current prices of fresh and pre-treated recovered oils. Costs of 48p (including distribution and distributor’s profit margin, as for petro-fuels) and 36p respectively would be more realistic. Production costs for biodiesel made with high ratios of animal fats and tallows may be up to 46p per litre, given the lower yield from these materials.

The production figure of 240,000 tonnes of straight rapeseed oil has been put forward by DETR as the potential for this proposed fuel. This is felt to be a conservative figure, which could be increased by 25% within three years within the overall land usage scheme envisaged.

240,000 hectares of land taken from set aside would create 15,000 new jobs in the agricultural sector – an aspect omitted from both DETR and DTI considerations, but a necessary precursor to HM Treasury calculations.

It is anticipated that the production of biodiesel from recovered oil by a number of smaller producers will form the spearhead of the movement towards more sustainable transport fuels. In order that this be both economic and effective, an additional "profit" margin must be allowed for market exploitation and distribution set-up costs in order to allow a customer base to be established. It is therefore important not to attempt to differentiate between the sources of feedstock. It is also impractical, from an administrative point of view.

A production potential of 100,000 tonnes of biodiesel made from waste oil has been suggested, which could be increased to 120,000 tonnes within three years, given an improved collection system. This will happen as public awareness is raised and disposal regulations more strictly enforced.

From the interest shown by a number of small (and not so small) RVO collectors, production would commence within months of a tax reduction announcement, amounting to 9,000 tonnes (10m litres) in the first year and rising to full capacity within three years. This could possibly be reduced to two years, if restrictions were to be placed on the use of waste oil in animal feeds. For this reason, prior notification – or substantial pump priming – would be required to avoid a waste oil crisis.

N. B. It must be noted that petroleum fuel costs have risen by a factor of three during the years 1998/2000. There is no indication that this trend will be reversed - the global demand annual growth rate of 2% will ensure that this trend continues. The days of cheap energy are ended.

The production of organic ethanol and/or methanol is essential to the sustainability and environmentally friendly production of biodiesel. It is estimated that 80,000 tonnes per annum will be required to meet UK demands. Liaison with the Home Grown Cereals Authority may prove informative.

It has been used as a form of dismissal (cf. CVTF Alternative Fuels report, p.37) the fact that biofuels will not be able to provide more than a small part of the transport fuels required in the UK. However, no viable long-term proposals have been made, only academic promises based on impracticalities.

The prognosis for the future of UK energy supplies is bleak. Readily available global oil supplies are forecast to last another sixty years – forty, if the current 2% annual growth rate is maintained – and biofuels are able to supply less than 10% of the current transport usage. Nuclear plant are not scheduled for replacement, and there are no plans for large-scale hydro or tidal energy schemes.

Despite these unassailable facts, "sustainable" government plans are currently based on an oil economy and the premise that there will be no future past the year 2020. The exception is Northern Ireland, where proposals are being considered for the next forty years.

There can be no doubt that a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle is required for the so-called "developed" world. The real challenge is to utilise modern technology to meet this aspiration.

From the foregoing, it may be seen that the words "cleaner", "greener" and "sustainable" have been used by Government in strictly relative terms as a basis for financially encouraging marginally beneficial transport fuels. All have been petroleum oil/gas based and therefore both polluting and unsustainable.

The situation has not been improved by the dissemination throughout Government circles of incorrect information about biofuels, specifically biodiesel.

Conversely, there have been many misleading carrots dangled in the form of hope for the future, and research and development funding has been provided for motive power sources which are far from sustainable, energy negative or otherwise impractical. This paper has set out to dispel some of the myths that exist in a balanced, common-sense and readily understandable format.

Economically available supplies of petroleum oil will last no longer than sixty years – forty years, if the current trend of 2% growth per annum is maintained. The global supply of oil is mainly controlled by a unilateral body, subject primarily to the market forces of supply and demand.

There are two questions to be answered –

1. Can our children afford the effects of the continued use of oil without constraint?

2. Can they or we afford the further adverse effects of climate change by our continuing to add carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to the atmosphere?

It is accepted that home-grown biofuels are unable to supply more than 10% of the UK’s current demand for road transport fuel – which leaves nothing for rail, air and sea transport. This contribution has been technically and commercially achievable for decades – but the simple premise of "a slice of cake is better than none" has been disregarded for a number of ill-advised reasons. This is amply illustrated in both the ETSU New and Renewable Energy publication produced for the DTI in March 1999 and the 217 page Alternative Fuels report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force of the DETR published in January 2000. (Which, to save reading it, dismisses biofuels in two paragraphs on page 37. Hardly surprising, since eight of the 32 member panel were from the petroleum industry.)

The responsibility for the supply and control of sustainable energy in the UK is split between Departments – MAFF, DETR and DTI all have different areas of interest. It is patently obvious that this system is not working efficiently, despite the good intentions of the "joined-up government" policy document. The DETR/DTI seminar held on 13 December, 2000 was the first example of good sense being applied to the problem.

For example, it is one thing for MAFF to support the setting up of SRC schemes – it is another for DTI to reduce the payments to the level whereby this is no longer economically viable (let alone profitable) to set up a project. The administrative procedures of issuing contracts have also been stifling.

A more holistic and co-ordinated approach to the whole energy and energy pollution problem is therefore required to ensure ecologically sustainable national energy security. A start has been made in the DETR Climate Change draft programme, but this needs to be made specific in the actions required – which may not prove popular with government – and define responsibilities for action. A 3% renewables contribution after 15 years effort does not equal 10% by 2010, by conventional mathematics.

Sustainable economic development will not be possible without management re-organisation – the burden of bureaucracy is too great. Even when confined to one Department, action is retarded – for example, the announcement by government in December 1999 that £30m funding was to be allocated to energy crops. Eleven months later (Hansard 137143), the Agriculture Minister was still promising "£30 million will be available...".

This is not acceptable from a government that asks, "are you doing your bit?"

There follows a number of specific proposals for the development of the various technologies and infrastructures involved in improving the future for environmentally friendly road transport fuels.

The technical barrier to the encouragement of straight vegetable oils as a transport fuel is lack of suitable engines. Despite the fact that Dr Rudolph Diesel ran his new engine over a hundred years ago on peanut oil (Henry Ford used hemp), subsequent engineering developments have been based on petroleum fuel.

There is only one, privately instigated, British development project on the use of vegetable oils known. (Dean/Leeds NESTA/Teesside/Foresight Vehicles).

Subsequently, there will be valid objections from HM Customs & Excise, faced with the difficulty of applying a differentiation between a duty paid road fuel and domestic cooking oil sold in the supermarket. This problem may be partly overcome by funding only conversion to straight vegetable oils of agricultural machinery, registered taxis and public transport, and applying zero fuel tax rating. The price penalty involved in private conversion would act as a discouragement to personal users. Public transport rebates could be discontinued.

Funding should come via the Powershift scheme (Currently allocated £10m). In 1997, there were 116 electric cars on the roads of Britain. After four years of unremitting effort, the scheme has doubled this figure to just 240. Meanwhile, almost 3000 fossil LPG and CNG vehicle owners have benefited, both by having their vehicle conversion costs covered and their fuel costs halved. A double jeopardy for the taxpayer and of limited environmental benefit in real terms, yet funding for this scheme has received a massive boost. Compare this with the attitude towards organic transport fuels.

The UK has, since 1995, been denied a new biofuels industry involving up to 20,000 new jobs by misguided taxation, despite EU dispensations. The climate, however, has changed for the better.

Biodiesel may be produced from two primary feedstocks – fresh oils and recovered "vegetable" oil (RVO), which is contaminated by animal fats from cooking. It is the recycling of a waste product.

The existing system is that the RVO is recovered, clarified by filtering or centrifuging and may (or may not) be boiled to drive off water and sterilise. It is then sold to animal feed producers as a high protein additive. The danger to human health is that the animal fats contained are then recycled into the human food chain – one hamburger, contaminated by BSE (which is a protein), having the ability to be spread, cannibalistically, to a large number of cattle. This is a statistically small possibility, but one which cannot be ignored. Making biodiesel from the RVO reduces the possibility to zero.

It is therefore proposed that an "ethical switch", from the use of RVO as an animal feed supplement to the production of biodiesel, be encouraged as soon and as strongly as possible. The best form of incentive is financial, by the reduction of fuel tax. A level of 20p per litre (as opposed to 48.82p per litre for ULSD) has been proposed, for consideration by HM Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

This level of taxation would not only promote a rapid response from industry, but also allow for the economic production of biodiesel from fresh oils, which are a more costly feedstock. Currently, the UK exports some 200,000 tonnes of rapeseed oil to France, some of which is then used to produce biodiesel for the French market. Hence, there is a potential source of feedstock available almost immediately, with the creation of many jobs in the agricultural sector as the market develops.

Biodiesel may be produced by two methods – batch and continuous processes. The batch process is more labour-intensive, but less capital is required. It is suitable for production from both fresh oil and RVO feedstocks. The continuous process is better suited to production from fresh oil, but is considerably more capital-intensive. An immediately accessible capital grant of 20% is therefore proposed for batch process plants and 40% for continuous process plants.

Off-the-shelf continuous processing plants are available - at a cost - from Austria and Germany. For the record, the 80,000 tonnes per annum Oelmuhle Leer Connemann CD Process was developed in 1993/94 with a 20% subvention by DGXVII under the Thermie 93 programme towards the £10m cost.

Funding is also required for a British development, possibly incorporating the Oscillatory Flow mixing process recently developed by Cambridge University.

The production of vegetable oil requires costly seed presses, which is why there are so few of them. The access to a press close to the source of seed is cost-effective in terms of transport and distribution. A 50% capital grant should be available towards the cost of four or five regionally based presses.

The integrated production processes of ethanol and methanol are capital intensive. It is therefore proposed that grants of 50% be made available. In this way, biodiesel production may switch from using methanol made from petroleum stock to organically produced alcohols.

Methane should be considered both as a transport fuel and as a replacement for fossil fuels on a large scale. Production should be stimulated by 50% capital grants.

The manufacture and utilisation of biofuels is well-researched and in little need of funding, apart from the impending problem of glycerol utilisation. There are, however, a number of minor opportunities for production technique development in order to improve energy yield efficiency.

As has been stressed, there is also need for a "back to the future" development of more efficient multi-fuel engines, taking over from where Dr Diesel left off.

In addition to the £30m already planned for the funding of alleged agricultural development schemes and the £10m put into the Powershift scheme to promote the use of electric and gas-powered vehicles, it is proposed that a further £60m be allocated to promote the formation of a British biofuels industry during the two year gestation period (2001/2003).

Thereafter, funding of £10m per annum should be allocated, index linked.

This should be administered outside of the existing government departmental structures by a specialised unit, comparable with the Powershift scheme but staffed by a more experienced, multi-disciplinary team. The ethos of the new organisation should be pro-active, not passive.

There is little experience of the manufacture of biofuels in the UK – less than a dozen people have knowledge of using recovered vegetable oils as feedstock, for example. It is therefore proposed that an education service based on the existing technology base at the Newton Rigg Engineering Centre, University of Lancaster, be set up. Short courses, supplied free of charge, should commence in October, 2001.

Two consultation documents have been issued by DETR, dated 13 December and December 2000. There follows a series of comments, in note form, on points not covered in the preceding document.

1. The essence of the problem is to establish a sustainable transport fuel policy.

2. There is a sense of urgency required, which should not be obscured by "what if?" diversions.

3. Additives for use with biofuels (e.g. pour point suppressants for tallow esters) follow the same environmental rules as currently applied to petrofuels additives.

4. Vehicle warranty issues have proved to be market led. For example, most German manufacturers have approved the use 100% biodiesel; French manufacturers have approved a 5% content; most European tractor manufacturers have approved 100% use; Volvo Cars and Trucks approve, and Buses have agreed to reconsider their attitude; following the 13 December seminar, Ford may follow suit; Rover hadn’t heard of biodiesel and don’t intend to find out – yet! However, the writer has used 100% biodiesel in his 1994 Rover 218 family car for six months with no ill effects. It is not a problem.

5. It is recommended that no restriction be placed on the blending of either ethyl alcohol with petrol or biodiesel with petrodiesel – this is essentially a tax matter, for which the Fuel Producers are responsible to HM Customs & Excise. There can be no environmental objection.

6. Fuel cells should only be considered in the context of sustainable fuels. The increased mechanical efficiency is potentially achievable by further development of internal combustion engines being carried out by motor manufacturers. At their expense. They are "promising" – just that.

7. Glamorous hybrid vehicles are costly to manufacture and maintain and of doubtful benefit to the environment. Results may equally be achieved by the use of smaller, lighter vehicles using conventional power trains.

8. The most eco-friendly car is the aluminium framed, composite bodied, 500cc, 7hp Ligier Ambra, capable of running on biodiesel. However, as it is only capable of 45mph and seats just two people, it lacks "street credibility". This type of vehicle could achieve acceptance (as did the 125cc motor cycle) by changes to the driver licensins laws, restricting learner (and even qualified!) drivers under the age of 21 to cars under 500cc. It would also reduce the carnage caused by the "three years free insurance – no age limit" type of sales incentive.

9. All road improvements should cease - apart from safety issues – and the funding diverted to the improvement of public transport facilities. (Particularly in Northern Ireland!) All traffic congestion reports indicate that, as road facilities improve, so does the amount of traffic increase.

10. The use of the term "low carbon fuel" is both inappropriate and misleading. The hydrogen economy, for the UK, is a myth.

11. The New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21^st Century document also dismisses sustainable transport fuels, unless "both the yield of useable energy per hectare and vehicle efficiency can be greatly improved." It was written by ETSU, accepted by the DTI and has been subject to much criticism.

12. Tidal barrages, too, have been put down on the basis of "high capital costs of installation", despite being the most dependable source of energy in the sustainable armoury. Did anybody say that of the pyramids, one wonders? Or the Millennium Dome? Tidal energy offers the most cost-effective, long term opportunity available, with capital costs amortised over centuries, rather than decades.

13. "(Lignin)cellulosic biomass" appears to be the latest "in" phrase. Energy production figures are awaited with interest. Of course, experimental issues are always more attractive than dull facts.

14. Another catchphrase emerging is "niche" fuels. It is otherwise called "diversity of supply".

15. The production of glycerol as a by-product of biodiesel is about to become a waste problem – there is already a glut of it in Europe. Although a second transesterification produces a higher fraction oil, it is not an economically viable option at today’s petroprices. More research is required in this area.

16. Otherwise, an excellently researched and creditable document, in the time available. The most important aspect is that of constructive thought being applied to the problem.

It only remains for the thought to be turned into joined-up action.

The author of this paper, following a long-standing interest in renewable energy, obtained a small Sustainable Communities Award from the Millennium Commission in 1998 to study the viability of electric vehicles and, subsequently, sustainable transport fuels. As a result of this research he was one of the first people in the UK to be awarded a Millennium Fellowship.

Being unable to obtain further financial assistance, he funded from his own (and his wife’s) resources the setting up in Northern Ireland of a pilot biodiesel plant, researching the use of recovered vegetable oil as feedstock. He is one of three currently registered with HM Customs & Excise as active Substitute Fuel Producers, paying 48.82p per litre for the fuel used in his family car as a demonstration vehicle.

This has attracted a great deal of media interest that has encouraged him, together with a number of other enthusiasts, to campaign for the introduction of this eco-friendly and sustainable transport fuel in the UK. He has even been able to arrange for initial acceptance trials to be carried out by the local bus company, Translink.

January 2001