The home heating oil industry has a long and proud history, and Fuel Oil News has been there supporting it since 1935. It is an industry that has faced many challenges during that time. In its 77th year, Fuel Oil News is doing more than just holding
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/59744
NEWS & T RE ND S A Response to "Living with Biofuels: A Special Focus on Alternative Fuels Quality" (Feb. 2012) Throughout this article I read only negative issues about petro- "Living with Biofuels: A Special Focus on Alternative Fuels Quality" (Feb. 2012) by George Lanthier in my opinion generates a great deal of confusion about biofuels, and specifically Bioheat®. I have outlined below the concerns which I have and why they necessitate immediate clarification. The lead sentence, "This article is about fuel quality pure and simple," sets the stage for nothing but confusion. The author failed to mention the very high standards biofuels are held to in contrast with distillate fuels, and the stringent quality programs that biodiesel in particular has established to guarantee a quality product. I read only comparisons to petroleum fuels, the poor qual- ity of petroleum fuels mentioned in the same context of biodiesel and ethanol. Having recently viewed an advertisement in your publication touting biodiesel fuel quality in your magazine I found it interesting that no one sought out alternative opinions to this article before it went to press. The confusion continues by the article bundling all biofuels together when drawing negative attention to ethanol, which is very clear in the beginning of the article, with reference to small engine problems with naturally aspirated engines. The author is correct in that ethanol has had its share of problems with its solvency properties working to break down carburetor seals and diaphragms, but not so with biodiesel blends up to 20 percent (B20) in compression combus- tion engines and open combustion heating systems. Using another fuel's issues to set the stage for the readers seems rather alarmist, and may be effective at getting attention (hence the headline). However, painting all biofuels as having the same challenges does the reader a great disservice. The article continues fueling the confusion by incorrectly stating the energy content of biodiesel blends and petroleum fuels in Btu/ gallon. It compares the (high) heating value of #2 heating oil with the net (lower) heat value of B2 and B20 blend. Energy content in the US is always calculated utilizing the net (lower) heat value averages of all energy resources in Btu/unit. See the Attached link and file on Biodiesel and Petroleum based #2 heating values, prepared for the National Biodiesel Board by US DOE and US EPA. The net (lower) heating value of #2 oil is 129,500 not 138,500, as the article states. A B2 blend has a net (lower) heat energy con- tent of 129, 276. The difference is less than two tenths of a percent energy input for B2, not 8% as stated. A B20 blend net (lower) heat value is 127, 259 Btu/gallon, compared to the net (lower) heat value of #2 fuel which is 129,500. B20 has less than 2% lower heating input value than heating oil. There is also conveniently no mention of a biodiesel blends' higher cetane rating, lower emissions and cleaner operating heat exchangers. 10 APRIL 2012 | FUEL OIL NEWS | www.fueloilnews.com leum quality, system failures and inefficiencies - all being blamed on biofuels. There is no consideration of other factors that could be to blame, such as simply the challenged petroleum fuels and the environments which they are stored. The company used as a source for these numbers is a motor/generator manufacturer in Alabama that has been in business for two years with five employees. Do we hang our hat on that data alone, or rely on the thorough test- ing performed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and Brookhaven National Laboratories, as well as dozens of other nationally recognized resources? The author focuses on one large environmentally conscious client that reports a significant (52%) reduction in consumption from new retrofit technology. The client several years later is realizing an increase in fuel consumption and he is blaming the biodiesel blend. The author gives no other reason for this other than the faulty low heat values he was provided with. He has not demonstrated due diligence in his article by investigating the other variables that can lead to increased consumption of any energy resource in any facility such as the obvious: human behavior, CDD/HDD, cooling degree days/heating degree days, normalized utility data, change of use, change of operating schedule, change in occupancy etc. Any of these can easily result in an 8% increase in fuel consumption. There are many studies and field applications that have revealed more efficient operation with biodiesel blends in open and closed combustion systems. There have been numerous studies performed on the properties and characteristics of biodiesel made from various feedstocks. These reports are available on the National Biodiesel Board website (www.biodiesel.org). All of these studies have been conducted by reputable agencies using scientific study protocols and prescribed industry standards. The only way to accurately document the facts is to perform a baseline consumption analysis, and then data log and bench mark the effects of system changes after they are implemented as compared to the baseline study. This due diligence to the retrofit and energy source change process is the only way to determine the true effect of change. What makes biofuels, specifically Bioheat, attractive to fuel dealers and those that they serve is that it is domestically pro- duced, creates jobs in the US and helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Moreover, biodiesel is the best and at this time the "only" offense the heating oil industry has to mitigate market erosion to natural gas, and most importantly, to begin rebuilding the industry. Regards, Robert S. Cerio, Ocean State Energy Resources