Removing the Biofuel Confusion

I cannot recall a time when there has been so much consternation and confusion among fuel site operators as has been caused by the introduction of a percentage of biofuels.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of advice, but much of it is contradictory, biased and over-technical. So I have tried to cut through this with what I believe is a free, straightforward, easy to understand 10-point advice sheet, that can be obtained from the web site below.

There is now the added problem that the industry could have invested in equipment to gear up to deal with a problem that may possibly, if some environmentalists get their way, not continue; at the moment, this is as categorical as anyone can be.

One of the main proponents of biofuels has been the US Government. For America, biofuels had the dual advantage of increasing its flagging environmental credentials in the world, while tackling some of the problems with its rural economy and reducing its dependence on Middle East oil.

However, many in the environmental lobby have pointed out that the farming and production of biofuels actually creates more CO2 than oil derived fuels and that its cultivation has resulted in a huge increase in world food prices, due to land formerly used for food production being transferred to biofuel crops.

Now the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved E15 (petrol with 15% bio-ethanol) for cars made in 2007 and after, but has delayed a decision on allowing it for use in 2001 to 2006 models. This decision is being legally challenged by the American Petroleum Institute and various food industry groups. Without the US, global momentum for biofuels could slow down. This cooling in enthusiasm is also beginning to show on this side of the Atlantic. The Guardian has reported that UK ministers have said that Britain’s policy of supporting the EU commitment to biofuels is proving counter-productive and the greenhouse emissions associated with biofuels are substantially greater than the savings.

They are now urging the European Commission to rethink the plan.

The admission coincides with a major study published recently, which concludes that biofuels will create an extra 56 million tonnes of CO2 per year – the equivalent of 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020.

Also, for Europe to source the amount of biofuel needed within its own borders, it would need to cultivate an area somewhere between the size of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland.

Added to this is the problem that a small proportion of bio-diesel is made from animal fat, a fact that the growing number of vegetarians in the population has not yet realised. This is likely to cause something of a back-lash when they do wake up to it. At the moment, there is no way for retailers to know whether all or part of their bio-diesel delivery has come from an animal source, so they are unable to offer a vegetarian alternative.

All this means that we could be faced with a complete reversal of policy, stuck at the current 5% level, or it might be decided to press on eventually to 15-20%, with the probable need to have more than one blend available on the forecourt. Or one of the current research projects involving different methods of biofuel production may bear fruit.

The only certainty is uncertainty.

This means that we are faced with the situation that there is an undoubted current problem with which fuel site operators have to deal, but there is a disincentive for companies to invest in research and equipment to tackle the problem more efficiently.

For this reason, I have kept my approach as straightforward as possible, approaching it step by step, so fuel site operators can understand it as well as research chemists.

The first thing I have done is set out the three main symptoms that operators and maintenance companies are likely to spot: pumps running slowly, filters continually clogging, pump motors burning out and, worst of all, customers’ vehicles breaking down.

The most likely cause is the fact that biofuels are extremely good cleaning agents. All tanks, except brand new ones, will have a build-up of sludge in the bottom of the tank and rust and other contaminants around the walls and in the pipes. Biofuels will pick up dirt and particulates and deliver them to the pumps.

The other two causes are biological: bacteria and algae.

Algae forms a dark green to black slime when collected by filters out of suspension and bacteria form gelatinous clumps, which resemble jellyfish when viewed in the tank; these can be up to a foot across.

Both organisms need water, food and a conducive environment in which to thrive. Biofuels provide the food and, because of their propensity to absorb water, they can also provide the hydration. Bio-diesel is more susceptible than the ethanol in petrol, as ethanol is a mild bactericide.

If it is a simple sludge problem and the tanks are not too old, changing the filters a few times, until the sludge has passed through the system, may cure the problem and be the cheapest option.

I also recommend the regular testing of fuel by a specialist company, whether there is an apparent problem or not. Sometimes problems are not obvious by eye alone. A test will show just what problems there are and their extent. It will also establish a base line against which to judge the effectiveness of any remedial work that may have to be carried out.

As well as testing for particles and bio-contamination it is worth testing the specific gravity of the fuel. Normally, water in the fuel is reasonably obvious, but biofuel absorbs water and masks the problem. Often, the only indication is a change in the density of the fuel. Water in the fuel helps the growth of bacteria and algae.

There is also the question of where the water is coming from. The biofuel could be masking another problem – a topic I will return to later.

If these first steps lead to the conclusion that there is a sufficient problem, then, and only then, would I recommend tank cleaning.

All the advice from the USA and Australia, where they have had biofuels longer than we have, is that it is vital to have a clean tank when dealing with biofuel.

Our experience has shown that removing the fuel and thoroughly cleaning all sediment from the tank will cure a clogging problem caused by sediment. It will also remove bacterial colonies and algae clinging to the inside of the tank or in the residual sludge.

From reading the trade press, I noted with interest that other companies are beginning to support the line I have consistently taken for some time, that the only way is to thoroughly clean a tank. This is especially true if the aim is to end up with a thoroughly dry tank.

There has been pressure from some quarters towards remote cleaning from the outside. This, of course, uses a great deal of water, which has to be disposed of as contaminated, and makes it difficult to get a dry enough tank to deal with biofuel problems. I also firmly believe that tank entry is perfectly safe if the proper procedures are adhered to and operatives are correctly trained.

Also, while the tank is empty and clean, it can be checked for leaks and thinning, both by eye and by ultrasound probe.

This is also a good opportunity to get the tank lined, which can reinvigorate a corroded or leaking tank, provide leak detection and help keep the tank clean. There is, of course, also the value of contaminated stock to consider. If the volume of fuel and contamination is such that it cannot be sold through, or its safe disposal would represent too much of a financial loss, it is worth considering fuel polishing. This is where contaminated fuel is sucked out of the tank and put through a series of filters to clean it. For optimum results, I recommend the processed fuel should then be delivered to a cleaned tank. If the contamination is heavy, the fuel may have to go through the filters more than once.

Fuel polishing and tank cleaning go together, as there is little point in returning polished fuel to a contaminated tank, or contaminated fuel to a clean tank.

Once a fuel site operator has clean fuel in a clean tank, we recommend keeping it that way. As each new tanker load can bring in fresh biological contamination and, possibly, water, we believe it is prudent to schedule regular fuel analysis. This may lead to further polishing and cleaning, but taking action early will reduce subsequent costs and disruption.

Finally, I recommend regular tank cleaning. The best way to head off future problems is to schedule a programme of cleaning dependent on site conditions. Again, scheduled maintenance is always going to be cheaper and less disruptive than emergency remedial action.