This takes into account the practicality of supplying high-blend biofuels to different parts of the UK vehicle parc, based on existing fuelling infrastructure and vehicle re-fuelling practices.

The study reviewed the costs, performance and impacts of 13 different fuels:

• Euro V diesel
• Euro V gasoline
• biodiesel B5
• biodiesel B30
• biodiesel B50
• biodiesel B100
• bioethanol E5
• bioethanol E85
• biomethane (compressed)
• biomethane (liquefied)
• Pure Plant Oil (PPO)
• Biomass To Liquids (BTL)
• Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO)

Suitable fuels were assessed for use in vehicles in 8 classes:

• Car
• Light Goods Vehicle (LGV)
• Bus
• Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV)
• Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)rigid small
• HGV rigid large
• HGV articulated small
• HGV articulated large

Among the key findings:

• GHG savings of up to 2.4 MtCO₂e p.a. may be realized from the HGV (large artic) fleet if biomethane were deployed successfully in 20% of vehicles. Lower, but significant, GHG savings may alternatively be realized from B100 or PPO (1.58 or 1.61 MtCO₂e p.a.) This is before additional GHG savings from using high-blend biofuels in other types of HGV.

• Biomethane use in dedicated vehicles could offer a significant saving of 4.5 MtCO₂e, and total potential use of biomethane in dedicated, dual and bi-fuel vehicles could realize savings totalling over 10 MtCO₂e with 80% of this saving coming from goods and service vehicles where refuelling infrastructure may be easier to facilitate than for passenger cars, given sufficient biomethane fuel.

• A high impact combination for light duty vehicles, usually fuelled from forecourts is bioethanol (E85) in 5% of the car fleet and 10% in LGV. This is estimated to generate GHG savings totalling 2.6 MtCO₂e p.a. with use of E85 solely in 5% of passenger cars alone saving 1.76 MtCO₂e per annum.

• B30 used in LGV (van) and cars produces lower GHG reductions of 0.7 Mt MtCO₂e due to a relatively high fossil fuel component. However this route offers advantages in that some manufacturers’ diesel engines currently in use are already technically compatible with B30.

• Savings of 0.5 Mt CO₂ could be achieved from use biomethane in local bus fleets and the same from large rigid HGV. Notably, the number of buses that could generate this saving (18,000) is around half that of large rigid HGVs (34,000).

Effective vehicle and fuel combinations. The report concluded that For HGVs and MGVs operated on the basis of depot fuelling, significant GHG reduction may be realized though adoption of, (in order of GHG saving potential), B100; PPO; and biomethane (dual-fuel then dedicated).

The initial investment needed to operate with biomethane is comparatively high, however in the medium-term (over 5-7 years) biomethane is by far the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon in HGV, followed by PPO and B100. Operators will experience new technical requirements for operating with biomethane compared to liquid fuels and PPO operation is not currently warranted for use by any major OEM although some vehicles may be retrofitted by a specialist third party, with some also providing warranties.

Based on a mixture of practicality, potential for GHG reduction and cost effectiveness, a strategy to encourage high-blend biofuel use in cars in the UK should strongly consider bioethanol (E85), followed by biodiesel (B30). However, it should be noted that the expansion of the high-blend biofuels at forecourts faces a number of barriers, primarily the constraint on capacity to hold stocks, and to supply a greater number of different fuels at many locations, particularly smaller sites. It is recommended that a select number of high blend biofuels are prioritized.

Barriers and recommendations. The report also identified a number of barriers to the adoption of high biofuel blends in the UK. These include:

1. Political commitment and support. A major proportion of consultees cited the lack of clear government policy and direction and an absence of long term planning as barrier to the take up of high blend biofuels. The removal of the duty differential for biofuels in 2010 is the most serious barrier to high blends, and will totally undermine their viability and adoption. Early adopters of high blend biofuels, whilst contributing to CO₂ savings, are commercially penalized by the higher capital and operating costs associated with fuels. Without direct incentive or support, costs reductions and economies of scale will be delayed and may represent a long term barrier for market expansion.

2. Fuel production, distribution and supply. Constraints in the fuel distribution network means that different grades of low-blend biofuel will already have to be accommodated i.e. EN 590 / EN 228 with increasing biofuel content, and a lower blend ‘protection grade’. For high-blends to be realistic for the mass-market (i.e. retail/forecourt) fuel distributors will seek to prioritize and focus available distribution capacity on agreed high blend fuels which may require Government guidance.

   Distribution of UK produced biomethane as a low-carbon transport fuel will require a coordinated and supported approaches to certify injection of biomethane into the existing gas supply network.

3. Sustainability and Standardization. Presently there are large variations in quality of blended biofuel fuels produced by different sources, particularly in biodiesel blends. Quality can vary considerably due to advanced blending techniques, additive packs or selecting most appropriate feedstock source, for example rape seed for UK conditions. Degradation of fuels such as B5 during storage and distribution further contribute to the variance.

4. Availability of vehicles. Vehicle operators consulted reported that warranty terms for their vehicle if used with biofuels were difficult to obtain, understand and were possibly inconsistent. This lack of clarity has affected vehicle purchasing decisions and confused carbon reduction objectives.

   There is no forum through which major vehicle purchasers can collectively develop and communicate their vehicle requirements to OEMs. Such purchasers are seeking vehicles that can operate on fuels at higher blends than the 7% currently covered by the Fuel Quality Directive (FQC), and resulting specifications developed CEN that are planned to extend to 10% biofuel.

5. Sustainability and public/media perception. Negative public image as well as genuine uncertainty over the sustainability of biofuel production and use remain strong concerns to potential adopters and supporters of biofuels, motivated by sustainability and CSR goals.

Resources

• Evaluating the opportunities for high blend liquid and gaseous biofuel penetration in the UK (TTR, December 2009)