Alternative fuels for haulage?

Policy makers in Europe have turned their attention towards lowering CO2 emissions from HGVs, with greater efficiency being the starting point. But what role will alternative fuels play?

Peter Murphy investigates

I’m writing this article in Worcester right next to the River Severn, which for hundreds of years served as the key route for goods to get to & from the centre of England to our West Country ports and onto the world. Back then wind and water provided the sources of energy except in seasons when the river would dry up, when alternative energy equalled teams of rugged men that dragged laden boats through the mud past Worcester and beyond. The ‘bow-hauliers’ were paid and fuelled mostly in ale. Horses, then roads, did away with the bow-haulier, replaced by HGVs and their addiction to fossil fuel-derived diesel.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that haulage is ‘the commercial transport of goods’. As an island race we would be in deep trouble without our goods being hauled from sea or airport to warehouses, to shops or direct to our doorstep.

The scale of UK haulage is immense. The Freight Transport Association (FTA) 2014 Logistics Dashboard has an array of figures, most of them huge: 139 billion tonnes km of goods carried by HGVs; 66.4 billion van km driven; 28.7 per cent of HGVs running empty; average price per litre of diesel excluding VAT £1.09. Some numbers are small like the use of alternative fuels in HGVs, which has fallen each year since 2010 from 1.2 metric ton of oil equivalent to 1.0 mt of oil equivalent; the percentage of inland freight moved by rail (billion net tonne kilometres) at nine per cent; and the average fuel consumption for an HGV at 7.6 mpg. Road transport dominates and fossil fuel dominates that.
    
In 2008 the OECD’s Joint Transport Research Centre posed a worrying question: ‘Oil Dependence: is transport running out of affordable fuel?’ If the answer to that is yes, then why have we not accelerated the development of alternative fuels? Let’s explore some of the reasons.

Engineering improvements
DEFRA figures for emissions of air pollutants in the UK from 1970-12 show significant reductions in ammonia, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and sulphur dioxide.
    
Vehicle manufacturers and fuel producers have generated these gains in response to EU and UK government directives without large-scale adoption of alternative fuels. From January 2000 EU directive (98/70/EC) mandated that ultra low sulphur petrol and diesel (sub 10ppm) be used from 2005 and be complete by January 2009. The UKPIA cite £1 billion investment in plant by the oil industry as the key enabler.

Old fuel vs new fuel
Alternative fuels have been proposed as a source of fuel security. The oil shocks of the 1970s and King Herbert’s ‘peak oil’ predictions of a world where maximum oil production has been reached and reserves run down led to a search for a substitute. Alternative fuels  had been penciled in to fill this gap but in recent times old-fuel has had resurgence.
    
The sustained high price of oil means it is economically possible to exploit non‑conventional fossil‑based oil reserves. Canada’s tar sands has 300 billion barrels, Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt holds 250 billion barrels. There are large tar sand deposits in Russia, the Middle East & the USA. $40 per barrel makes exploitation viable. In July 2014 crude prices are north of $100 per barrel.
 
 Oil shale estimated to be in excess of 3,000 billion barrels by OECD’s Joint Research Centre dwarfs tar sand potential, with Brazil, Russia and USA as the key winners. Non-conventional sources of oil mean that alternative fuels face a steeper climb to acceptance.

The old fossil fuels exploited from new sources have stepped into the gap. There are environmental concerns with ‘new oil’. Getting tar and shale oil to refinery grade consumes greater amounts of energy and deforestation occurs when tar sands are stripped, and both scenarios increase CO2 emissions.  

Is HGV the villain?
Whilst the HGV is perceived as the villain of the piece, the layman is mostly unaware of the impact of private car ownership. We need our goods to be carried to our point of purchase, but do we always need to make the personal car journey? FTA’s Low Carbon Review 2014 provides DECC figures for the split of emissions by vehicle type. HGVs account for 20 per cent of GHGs compared to passenger cars at 58 per cent. Alternative fuels would have a greater impact in the private car fleet with progression to HGVs & this has an impact on adoption.

EU targets HGV CO2
In May 2014 the European commission set out its strategy to tackle CO2 emissions from HGVs for the first time. Connie Hedegaard Koksbang the European Commissioner for Climate Action outlined the aim: “We first regulated cars and vans, and we can now see the results: emissions have been reduced, air pollution in cities is in decline, and more innovative, fuel-efficient vehicles are now available to consumers. That is why we turn now to trucks and buses.”
    
The response from the European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association’s Secretary General Erik Jonnert highlighted efficiency rather than lower carbon fuels. He said: “Fuel efficiency is a top priority for the transport companies who buy and use trucks and buses, because fuel accounts for over one-third of their total operating costs…Fuel efficiency is therefore the number one competitive factor in developing and selling heavy-duty vehicles.”
    
The policy of prioritising efficiency over alternative fuel is echoed in FTA’s 2014 Logistics Carbon Review, which incorporated the Logistics Carbon Reduction Scheme (LCRS). The list of efficiency indicators includes monitoring carbon intensity of fuels and reducing the amount of carbon emitted for an equal output of power. This is the fourth of five points listed.
    
The LCRS Efficiency Indicators are: greater fuel efficiency – better driving skills, better engine performance and better aerodynamic styling; payload maximisation – fuller vehicles mean fewer journeys for the same amount of goods; empty running – lessen the occasion of wasteful empty journeys; carbon intensity of fuels – reduce carbon emissions for an equal power output to move goods using gas, biofuels and electricity; and modal split – harness rail and waterways as lower carbon methods of transport.
    
The LCRS second Annual Report gives a straightforward assessment of the barriers to greater uptake of alternative fuels, which remains relatively small but stable in terms of volumes consumed: “Factors holding back the take-up of these fuels beyond limited scale industry trials reflect: the cost of refueling infrastructure; a limited availability of public sites; and high and uncertain whole life operating costs (higher vehicle capital costs, and uncertain vehicle residual values).”

Alternative fuels – good vs bad
Notwithstanding the low take up of alternative fuels, bio-diesel, dimethyl ether (DME), natural gas and alcohols have the potential to reduce engine emissions significantly. Let’s take a look at some of the options.
    
Biodiesel can be generated from soybean, rapeseed, sunflower seed, coconut palm and used frying oil. The oils get converted to methyl esters before conversion to diesel oil. The market price of biodiesel is two-to-three times higher than regular diesel. Volume production and technology maturity should lower prices. There are blends of biodiesel and regular diesel on sale, typically five per cent biodiesel to 95 per cent regular. This allows for its introduction to engines and fuel systems that were not designed for biodiesel. Advantages include a high combustion value, good lubrication, zero SO2, zero sulphate emission & lowered particulate toxicity. Its disadvantages include a higher freezing point, more potential to corrode, a lower heating value, higher NOx and increased odour.
    
DME can be produced from renewable energy sources, from waste, from natural gas or from coal. DME has been shown to be an alternative for diesel engines with little engine modification required to achieve similar combustion values. Advantages include low particulate emission, zero sulphate & SO2, emissions, quieter engines and with after treatment low NOx. The downsides include lower viscosity and the injection system is in its early stages of design.
    
Whether compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG), it consists mostly of methane at 90 per cent and a smattering of other hydrocarbons. Gas is produced from gas wells or crude production. Energy is required to reduce temperatures to form the liquefied state and to store the gas. The majority of use is in the compressed state, requiring special refueling stations that can store and pressurise gas enough for in-vehicle use. Benefits include low particulate emission versus regular diesel, lower NOx and zero SOZ & sulphate emissions. Downsides include significantly larger tanks and up to 20 per cent lower efficiency than regular diesel engines.
    
Methanol and ethanol have positive combustion and emission properties. Agricultural crops such as sugar cane or corn are processed to produce ethanol, whilst methanol can be produced from urban waste, biomass or from crude oil. Cold starting issues mean that pure alcohols need to be blended with other fuels to be useful for automotives. Alcohol has a high combustion and energy value, low NOx & lowered evaporation losses. On the negative side, cold start issues, higher corrosion than fossil fuels, larger tanks and increased safety handling issues.

Barriers to adoption
Whilst there are positive environmental aspects to alternative fuels, with the lack of a refueling infrastructure, lower costs or favourable engine developments it is difficult to see greater adoption taking place. The big oil companies will harness economically viable shale and sand tar reserves. EU policy pressure will force acceleration in CO2 & GHG emission reduction but these will in the first instance be achieved with greater efficiency in the engine and fuel systems and across industry practices.
    
I like the LCRS’s drive to shift haulage mode to less carbon intensive routes. Who knows? Perhaps in time we will see a shift to the historic waterways and the Severn might have a role to play once more.

Further information
www.tierceleurope.co.uk