Reduced Sulfur Fuel in 2006

[jimnance]

By June 2006 the US EPA is mandating that at least 80% of the diesel fuel produced must contain no more than 15 PPM of sulfur in road diesel fuel. Quoting from Transport Topics "Current EPA regulations allow for 500 PPM of sulfur. " Prior to 1993 sulfur content was not regulated and sulfur averaged 3,000 PPM.



Why is this important? In 1993 there was a rash of fuel pump failures in older commercial diesel trucks after low sulfur fuel was introduced. Mostly older pumps were affected which had rubber O ring seals that needed the sulfur to maintain thier integrity. Also, sulfur acts as a lubricant in diesel fuel helping to protect parts of the fuel system in direct contact with the fuel.



Sweden intoduced VLSF (very low sulfur fuel) in about 1995. A rash of fuel pump failures caused Bosch to investigate. What they found was that the fuel pump impellors were experiencing rapid wear due to the lack of sulfur's lubricating properties. In part the problem was solved through pump reengineering, and fuel reformulation.



What does this mean for us? While Cummins and others have been working to prepare thier future engines for VLSF, many of our older engines' fuel systems may suffer premature failure. While we hope that refiners will add lubricity enhancers to help prevent these problems, some engines may still be affected.



It may be a wise protective measure during the early stages of VLSF to add fuel additives containing lubricity additives until the full scope of the problem is seen. Hopefully it will not be wide spread, but treating fuel in the short term (perhaps a year) could be cheap insurance against pump failure.

 

[rbattelle]

From everything I've read from big refiners like Mobil, Chevron, and Marathon they are developing additive packages that ensure no change in lubricity of the fuel. I'm much less worried about it now. I currently run no fuel additives (because I can't decide what's the "right" one). Of course, using a biodiesel blend of at least 1% provides better lubricity than standard (non low-sulphur) diesel. I'm praying that my local filling stations will begin offering at least B2 soon.



-Ryan

 

[jimnance]

I hope you are right Ryan. However, there is no law mandating that they restore the lubricity. I'm not sure you could succesfully sue an oil company in the event of the failure of an older pump. Too costly, and I'm not sure you could prevail anyway.



Certainly, if one source of fuel was linked to lots of failures it could be a marketing disaster for the particular refiner. However, because of the distribution system we have, unless the package is added at the rack we don't really know whose fuel it is.



I'm only suggesting that this upcoming change has some downside potential and some cheap additive insurance might be a good idea until we can see if the refiners have really done thier homework.



Jim

 

[Tony T.]

We are using the ULSD at my work place now. Have been using it since 9/15/04,so far have not heard of any pump failures from the shop guys related to the new fuel. I ask our fuel manager about using a additive with the ULSD an his reply was according to their specs none is needed. A lot of our equipment ranges from late eighties to the present year model. They all to seem to run fine so far.



I have recently started using a fuel additive myself in my 03, weather it's needed or not I could not tell you for sure, probally not. I just felt it could not hurt an the one I'm using is cheap in cost anyway. I have noticed a slight increase in mpg, but there again it could relate to driving habits, lack of using ac,or purly physcological :-laf . I'm using 8oz of the Power Service (gray bottle) per tankful of fuel of the 32oz bottle.



I would like to see the bio-diesel offered more, looks to me it would only help our fuel systems and our farmers. I believe there are good alternatives to conserve our fuel if they really wanted to.



Tony

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"From everything I've read from big refiners like Mobil, Chevron, and Marathon they are developing additive packages that ensure no change in lubricity of the fuel. I'm much less worried about it now. "



TRUSTING our stateside refiners to "do the right thing" regarding diesel fuel quality is something *I* am not prepared to do! At least not until a working method is developed to hold those refiners and the EPA accountable financially for damage to equipment and/or deviations from clearly established government standards for fuel...



That hasn't happened yet, and I certainly am NOT holding my breath WAITING for it to happen! We have had abundant examples, supplied by Bosch and others, that our stateside fuels vary considerably in contaminent levels and delivered quality to the end consumer, and in MANY cases, little/no government standards even EXIST to assure diesel quality!



I, for one, don't have any serious hopes things are likely to change in one short year...

 

[jimnance]

Quote:



We are using the ULSD at my work place now. Have been using it since 9/15/04,so far have not heard of any pump failures from the shop guys related to the new fuel. I ask our fuel manager about using a additive with the ULSD an his reply was according to their specs none is needed. A lot of our equipment ranges from late eighties to the present year model. They all to seem to run fine so far.



I was unaware that any refiners were producing ULSD (15PPM) at this time. Is your company being used as a test bed for the new fuel? If so, I'm wondering where they are getting it.



Financially, they would be taking a hit unless they are being used as a Guinea Pig by one of the refiners. ULSD will be more expensive to refine, and that cost will be passed along to the consumer. I can't imagine any other reason someone would use a high cost option.



Can you provide more information?

 

[Tony T.]

Quote:



We are using the ULSD at my work place now. Have been using it since 9/15/04,so far have not heard of any pump failures from the shop guys related to the new fuel. I ask our fuel manager about using a additive with the ULSD an his reply was according to their specs none is needed. A lot of our equipment ranges from late eighties to the present year model. They all to seem to run fine so far.



I was unaware that any refiners were producing ULSD (15PPM) at this time. Is your company being used as a test bed for the new fuel? If so, I'm wondering where they are getting it.



Financially, they would be taking a hit unless they are being used as a Guinea Pig by one of the refiners. ULSD will be more expensive to refine, and that cost will be passed along to the consumer. I can't imagine any other reason someone would use a high cost option.



Can you provide more information?

Sure no problem, county gov't. Last summer they had a "oh" I'll say at least a 1000 or 1500 gal tank set up for a select few of our fleet vehicle's to fill up from. Although I don't think it was the ULSD,which it may have been. This select few of vehicles were only allowed to fill from this tank for testing out the fuel. I have a feeling, no real proof that it might have been a blend of bio-diesel. Then again could have been the ULSD, just speculation on my part. The one reason I feel it was bio-diesel is one of our shop mechanics was cleaning out a fuel canister at the mineral wash rack an I ask him what the sludge looking stuff was, all he could say was it was from using that new fuel they got out there in that remote tank, he knew nothing about the fuel. I did'nt know at the time, but since then I have read the bio-diesel will literally clean out a fuel system of a vehicle that's been running on regular #2 diesel for awhile an this truck had a steel fuel tank. Here again my own speculation,no proof.



My own views of using the ULSD is I noticed filling a piece of equipment from our truck aux tank is the fuel color looked lighter, more of a clear look like water with a very slight greenish or yellowish tint. These views mostly on cloudy days though, I have not actually pumped any in a glass or plastic jar to check color though.



The motorgrader I use has the Cummins in it an I'll burn about 60 to 70 gallons of fuel in a couple of days. Like I said been using the ULSD since Sept an had no issue's yet with the fuel.



The county I live in an work in, our gov't is very concerned with keeping in the EPA standards. Even though they always sumit for lowest bid on equipment purchase to keep cost down, we have just recently purchased three Caterpiller 140 motorgraders an have a Cat D6 high track on order for spring 05. The Cat's are not the lowest bids of course an reason they went with them is because they meet county specs on emmissons. They won't be sorry in my book because the Cat equipment does hold it's value.





Tony

 

[jimnance]

From what you describe perhaps we are talking the two common fuels available today. On road low sulfur fuel (500 PPM) and off road "high sulfur" fuel. I suspect that a road grader is only required to burn off road diesel, yet the county chooses to burn on road low sulfur fuel.



What I refer to as Ultra Low Sulfur fuel (15 PPM), to my knowlege, is not refined in commercial quantities in the U. S. - yet. I suppose one might be able to obtain a source for it from Europe where it is being phased in. However, the costs would be quite high to bring in small quantities of what would be essentially a specialty fuel.



Bio-diesel testing by a county government would not surprise me. Although slightly more expensive, they can set an example for other private companies. Never mind that most companies will continue to burn the cheapest fuel available anyway. If the competition is using cheap fuel, you will too. Until/if government regulation requires the use of bio-diesel it will be a niche market for farmers, public organizations, or just environmentally minded companies that are willing to spend the extra money.



As far as equipment is concerned I believe that on road equipment with engines produced January 1, 2007 and later will be required to meet the new much lower emissions requirements. This is why ULSD (15 PPM) needs to start being produced by June of 2006. It will take time to fill the pipeline. Use of current diesel may damage equipment produced for the ULSD.

 

[LightmanE300]

Jim - this plan was passed in 2000, and the article you posted has been posted on this site numerous times. Also ULSD has been available for years in select markets - like the whole state of california. :-laf ARCO stations have carried it for quite some time. Most users report no change in running operation, although some say they get slightly better mileage on CARB fuel.



I can't wait for ULSD, and I'm sure any other owners of diesels with EGR's are excited too. It's the sulfur in the current fuel causing all of those TDI intakes to clog , and other EGR engines to become sooted up. I recently cleaned the intake on my E300 and it wasn't much fun!



By the way this thread should be in the General Diesel topics section. .

 

[jimnance]

Quote from Diesel Technology Forum "Today, the sulfur content of ULSD ranges from 15 to 30 parts per million. Regular diesel has a maximum of 500 parts per million of sulfur. Other than the sulfur content, ultra-low sulfur diesel generally meets the same specifications as regular on-highway diesel. Starting in 2006, the majority of highway-grade diesel fuel must be ULSD and have no greater than 15 ppm sulfur level at the pump. "



In fact, I don't think you are quite correct about California. It appears from the link http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/dieselpm/lsdffactsht.pdf that ULSD for mobile sources is not required for mobile sources (vehicles) until 2005, and possibly as late as 2006. While it may be the case that some refiners are in compliance, others may not. In fact, it seems likely that in California they are burning a witches brew which may range anywhere from 15 PPM to 500 PPM. Since you generally don't run your tanks dry you are probably running a blend unless you exclusively use ARCO fuel. Personally, I don't see many ARCO stations in California selling diesel fuel, so it's hard to estimate what impact thier production along with production from other refiners has on overall Sulfur concentrations.



Naturally, as we get closer to the drop dead date for Federal ULSD more refiners will be in or near compliance with the 15 PPM requirement. In California there is a mandate for a lubricity additive, though I have yet to find this mandate within the federal regulations though it may exist.



So, it may be a little early to proclaim victory LightmanE300. I would agree that reducing ULSD and mandating it's use is a good thing in the long term. My concern has been with the short term consequences. Running a few tanks in California where it does not appear to be mandated as yet does not qualify as a good test yet. <grin>



I can report that on road Class 8 trucks running the new low emissions engines are seeing about a TEN PERCENT LOSS in fuel economy. In many cases it may be that the use of EGR as a way of complying with the new regs until ULSD is available and catalytic methods are available for treatment is the culprit. Hopefully, the 2007 engines and ULSD will restore the lost economy.



So yes, I was not correct about no ULSD being available. As to being widely available, I think that is highly uncertain.

 

[jimnance]

BTW, your smart as* attitude is a bit annoying. I wonder how your wife (if you have one) can handle it? <smile>



Since you've been blatantly rude in some of your reply posts I suppose turn about is fair play.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

At a time when according to independent testing, CURRENT fuels are FAR from meeting much semblance of uniformity or meeting manufacturer's spec's for fuel system components, it would seem sorta "out on a limb" to be making serious claims as exactly WHAT any given station or brand MIGHT be selling customers at their pumps... If VERY recent fuel testing revealed *80%* of stations tested FAILED to meet Bosch injection pump specs, would we REALLY wanna blankly assume a station was pumping the "latest and greatest" low-sulphur stuff, unless it was verified by analysis? It's been pretty well established they can CLAIM just about anything, and get away with it...



And again, do we REALLY think there will be a radical turn-around in the uniformity and quality of the fuel we buy in a mere years time?

 

[LightmanE300]

BTW, your smart as* attitude is a bit annoying. I wonder how your wife (if you have one) can handle it? <smile>



Since you've been blatantly rude in some of your reply posts I suppose turn about is fair play.

Wow, thanks for taking the time out of your important life to make a personal attack on me. Very impressive. In over 900 posts, you are the only one who's had a problem with me. Makes me wonder where the problem truly lies. .

 

[LightmanE300]

Quote from Diesel Technology Forum "Today, the sulfur content of ULSD ranges from 15 to 30 parts per million. Regular diesel has a maximum of 500 parts per million of sulfur. Other than the sulfur content, ultra-low sulfur diesel generally meets the same specifications as regular on-highway diesel. Starting in 2006, the majority of highway-grade diesel fuel must be ULSD and have no greater than 15 ppm sulfur level at the pump. "



In fact, I don't think you are quite correct about California. It appears from the link http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/dieselpm/lsdffactsht.pdf that ULSD for mobile sources is not required for mobile sources (vehicles) until 2005, and possibly as late as 2006. While it may be the case that some refiners are in compliance, others may not. In fact, it seems likely that in California they are burning a witches brew which may range anywhere from 15 PPM to 500 PPM. Since you generally don't run your tanks dry you are probably running a blend unless you exclusively use ARCO fuel. Personally, I don't see many ARCO stations in California selling diesel fuel, so it's hard to estimate what impact thier production along with production from other refiners has on overall Sulfur concentrations.



Naturally, as we get closer to the drop dead date for Federal ULSD more refiners will be in or near compliance with the 15 PPM requirement. In California there is a mandate for a lubricity additive, though I have yet to find this mandate within the federal regulations though it may exist.



So, it may be a little early to proclaim victory LightmanE300. I would agree that reducing ULSD and mandating it's use is a good thing in the long term. My concern has been with the short term consequences. Running a few tanks in California where it does not appear to be mandated as yet does not qualify as a good test yet. <grin>



I can report that on road Class 8 trucks running the new low emissions engines are seeing about a TEN PERCENT LOSS in fuel economy. In many cases it may be that the use of EGR as a way of complying with the new regs until ULSD is available and catalytic methods are available for treatment is the culprit. Hopefully, the 2007 engines and ULSD will restore the lost economy.



So yes, I was not correct about no ULSD being available. As to being widely available, I think that is highly uncertain.

Yes actually I'm 'quite correct' regarding CA. ULSD(15ppm) has been available through select ARCO outlets in CA for quite some time, at least 2 years. Folks on the TDICLUB have been reporting good results using ARCO ULSD consistently.



I'm also not sure what victory I'm proclaiming - I just think ULSD will be a very positive thing. Reduced emissions, and the availability of a bunch of new diesel vehicles that would have previously never passed emissions regulations. I'm just annoyed that the ruling for the 2006 switch didn't include a mandatory cetane increase. 15ppm sulfur but still 40 cetane, arghh.

 

[Tony T.]

From what you describe perhaps we are talking the two common fuels available today. On road low sulfur fuel (500 PPM) and off road "high sulfur" fuel. I suspect that a road grader is only required to burn off road diesel, yet the county chooses to burn on road low sulfur fuel.



What I refer to as Ultra Low Sulfur fuel (15 PPM), to my knowlege, is not refined in commercial quantities in the U. S. - yet. I suppose one might be able to obtain a source for it from Europe where it is being phased in. However, the costs would be quite high to bring in small quantities of what would be essentially a specialty fuel.

Jim I have no documation to prove to myself or you or anyone else other than a newsletter. We receive a monthly newsletter, in August 04 with a article about starting the use of ULSD (15ppm) in Sept/04. They did print the (15ppm) in the newsletter. This is all I have to go by an to ask questions that may or may not get answered. As far as ULSD 15ppm diesel is bogus for the U. S. I could'nt tell you that with out hard core documation. The diesel we use is not the red or farm diesel type another words not dyed, I assume that since we are a gov't agency that I'm sure they do get some relief on fuel cost of the taxed diesel. Here again trying to save as much as possible.



Tony

 

[rbattelle]

Be cool, guys... we're all dieselheads here!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

On the assumption ( ) that some stations ARE selling actual 15 ppm diesel fuel, ya gotta wonder where they are getting it... I would imagine that the large effort required to change over a refinery that normally produces the "usual" grade of diesel for a relatively small number of stations scattered over a rather wide distribution area would be quite inefficient and not very cost effective. And then, for what rational purpose? Why would owners of vehicles MADE for the standard grade stuff WANT the more expensive lower sulphur stuff if their vehicles didn't really benefit in a significant way?



Sure, a few would for that famous "warm and fuzzy feeling" - but not much other reason, and you wouldn't think enough demand on the "civilian" market to warrant the extra effort. Of course, perhaps some smaller refineries in relatively densely populated areas might dedicate ALL their diesel production to the low-sulphur diesel - but for a large refinery to shuttle back and forth in production doesn't seem profitable until there are enought vehicles out there that really NEED the low-sulphur stuff...

 

[LightmanE300]

Gary - some interesting speculation. If you want the answers to some of your questions, see the link below.



Jim, Gary( ) and all other nonbelievers (what reason would I have to lie?) I did a little digging, and as I suspected, ARCO is actually reselling BP's ECD fuel. This is ULSD and has been available for a few years in california (lots of stations not just a few) and a few other select markets. You can look around this page for info -

http://www.ecdiesel.com/business/locator.asp

 

[tschwab]

8oz of Stanadyne Perfomance Formula fuel additive with every fill-up for me, cheap insurance.

 

[Eric Lee]

One word -

Amalgamated

http://www.amalgamatedinc.com/products.htm