PORTLAND
MARKET
REPORT
October update
Even the most cynical observer would have
to admit that the global oil trade is both
fascinating and action-packed. Pipelines that
span national borders – long since closed to
human migration. Deep sea oil tankers that are
the length of 4 football pitches and powered
by 100,000 horsepower engines. Refi neries
that never stop processing and literally
produce hundreds of consumer products. The
monitoring of emissions from diesel engines…
hold-on, diesel emissions!? That’s hardly rock
and roll…But then again, such is the current
public frenzy around diesel emissions, that the
subject has almost become the main talking
point of the whole industry...
Rightly or wrongly diesel is now seen as
the “enemy of the people”, much of which can
be attributed to the VW Dieselgate scandal.
But the knock on effects are now being felt by
commercial vehicles, as city after city around
the world starts to introduce Low Emissions
Zones (LEZs), which are basically a fancy title
to describe the process of banning diesel.
And such developments must be dispiriting
to the automotive scientists and researchers
who have put so much time and effort into
improving diesel engines over the last 25 years.
The fi rst signifi cant “material”
improvements to diesel emissions came in
1992, with the introduction of Euro I engine
technology. The main focus of Euro I (which
was for trucks and buses only) was a reduction
in sulphur oxide emissions (SOx), that was to
coincide with the introduction of lower sulphur
fuels. This was to combat acid rain, which was
the European bête noire of the time and was
busily destroying Scandinavian pine forests.
There were also other Euro I air quality targets
– for unburnt hydrocarbons, particulate matter,
Nitrous Oxide (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide
(CO). Interestingly there were no initial targets
for Carbon Dioxide, as in those early days of
the 1990s the concept of climate change was
confi ned to a few select university laboratories
and lecture halls.
It’s fair to say that the early targets
were not particularly onerous, but they did
start a trend which placed the responsibility
“LEZS – A FANCY TITLE TO
DESCRIBE THE PROCESS OF
BANNING DIESEL”
for air quality directly on the engine and fuel
manufacturers. And every few years, the targets
set by the EU became ever more stringent
(Euro II in 1996, Euro III in 1999), until the
ultimate emissions “game-changer” of Euro
IV in 2005. By this time, sulphur free fuels had
effectively dealt with acid rain, which left NOx
emissions as the major remaining concern and
Euro IV addressed this by introducing for the
fi rst time a requirement for Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCRs).
“RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY
DIESEL IS NOW SEEN
AS THE ENEMY OF THE
PEOPLE”
SCR technology relies on the addition of a
liquid reducing agent which, when sprayed over
exhaust emissions, releases ammonia – the
catalyst that breaks down NOx into nitrogen,
oxygen and water. The liquid reducing agent
in question was a urea and de-ionised water
combination, invented by scientists at the
German Automobile Association and called
AdBlue (given this name because the scientists
were drunk at the naming ceremony and
didn’t notice that the liquid in question was
completely clear and not in fact blue). This
simple product has effected its own mini
revolution when it comes to diesel emissions,
because by the time Euro V engines were
mandated (2009), every new commercial
vehicle in Europe had to run on AdBlue.
Furthermore, this was not some “nice to have”,
airy-fairy requirement that was impossible
to police and easy to get around. Far from it!
Without AdBlue, the engines of trucks and
buses literally wouldn’t start. And if the AdBlue
supply was to run-out when vehicles were out
on the road, then engines would progressively
lose power until the AdBlue supply was topped
up.
By the time Euro VI engines were
introduced (2013), the immense impact of
SCR technology and AdBlue was clear. For
example, a single Euro I bus in 1993 emitted
the same amount of NOx as 20 Euro VI buses
in 2018. On particulate matter, the Euro VI to
Euro I ratio is 1:36 (ie, Euro I vehicles emitted
36 times the particulate matter of Euro VI
vehicles). Even the improvements between
Euro V and Euro VI engines are enormous, with
a Euro V engine emitting circa 4.5 grams of
NOx per kilometre driven, versus an incredible
0.25 grams per km for a corresponding Euro VI
engine. And it goes without saying that when
it comes to passenger transport, buses beat
cars hands down. A Euro VI bus emits 61mg of
NOx per km, whereas a Euro 6 car engine emits
500mg. That’s equivalent to 0.61 mg of NOx
per km per passenger for a bus, versus 100mg
for a car!
But tackling car owners is a whole different
political ballgame, so expect municipal
authorities to continue hammering the truck
and bus industries with increasingly stringent
targets on emissions. For most cities clean local
air is far more pressing than the wider global
issue of climate change and this means that
for all the recent improvements to fuel quality
and engine technology, it will probably not be
enough to save the diesel engine within city
limits. Not only has total electrifi cation of urban
areas already begun (Chinese cities add 2,000
electric buses to municipal transport operations
every week!), it will likely accelerate because
fi rst and foremost it improves local air quality.
More importantly however, it deals the enemy
that is diesel a mortal blow and as such, it is a
sure-fi re way to win political favour. How that
electricity is produced, where it is produced
and whether it actually adds more CO2 to the
wider environment than clean diesel engines,
is for someone else to worry about and not the
business of the local city authorities…
For more pricing
information, see
page 26
Portland Fuel Price Protection
www.portland-fuel-price-protection.com
Fuel Oil News | October 2018 9