'Greens' fear CO2 impact of 33%-Fischer-Tropsch diesel

Diesel Fuel News, June 9, 2003 by Jack Packham

A coalition of several California "green" groups urges California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board staff to reconsider a push for 33%-blends of Fischer-Tropsch diesel as part of a scheme to reduce "petroleum dependence."

The CEC/CARB staff report jointly recommends that California move away from over-reliance upon oil & gas partly through vehicle fuel-efficiency improvements -- but also via 33% FT-diesel blending.

Such a strategy would allow diesel supplies to expand, while avoiding "pollution" from California crude oil refining capacity expansion. It also would avoid huge social costs of highpriced, tax-subsidized "alternative fuels" (see Diesel Fuel News, 5/12/03, p1).

But critics of the CEC/CARB plan claim this is environmental "Nimby-ism," as any "pollution" occurring overseas during FT-diesel production wouldn't be counted in California.

In their joint letter and in recent testimony to CEC/CARB, the "greens" worry that the "global warming" ([CO.sub.2]) emissions of FT diesel production could be even worse than the [CO.sub.2] emissions from crude refining.

U.S. Department of Energy expressed similar concerns during a hearing last fall on a petition to declare FT-diesel an "alternative fuel" under the federal Energy Policy Act.

However, Shell and other GTL proponents produced studies showing that GTL diesel can be comparable to crude-oil refining on net [CO.sub.2] emissions once including [CO.sub.2] impacts of burning coke or heavy fuel oils from crude refining.

Here's what American Lung Association of California, Bluewater Network, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Coalition for Clean Air, Kirsch Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists said in their joint letter to CEC/CARB:

"In its discussion of possible options to meet the petroleum reduction goal, the [CEC/CARB] staff report includes greater development and use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel as one of two mentioned short-term options.

"We understand that the options listed are used principally as illustrations of what can be done and are not the only options available. However, we're concerned about highlighting Fischer-Tropsch among alternative fuels because that fuel can have greater upstream greenhouse gas emissions than the diesel fuel it is designed to displace.

"Also, most current and planned sources for Fischer-Tropsch are located in foreign countries with histories of political and economic instability and weak environmental protection enforcement.

"Given these concerns, the report should note the need for a broader analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of Fischer-Tropsch diesel in heavy-duty vehicles, including its full fuel-cycle air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and the potential for optimizing its fuel-cycle emissions. Standards of performance must be defined and adopted that ensure Fischer-Tropsch use will not result in reduced air quality or increased greenhouse gas emissions."

Rather than pushing FT-diesel, the greens instead urge California to take other actions such as banning the purchase of low-efficiency sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) by government fleets.

Meantime, in a public workshop last month on the CEC/CARB recommendations, California Trucking Association (CTA) expressed worries that a 33% FT-diesel blend could perpetuate California's isolation from the U.S., Mexican and Canadian diesel fuel markets. The issue: "CARD diesel" not only meets North American low-sulfur standards, but by CARD regulation must be far lower in aromatics and higher in cetane than the EPA-qualified fuels sold in neighboring areas.

This unique diesel spec tends to cause CARD diesel price premiums that sometimes reach well over 20 cents/gallon -- enough to cause in-state trucking companies to lose freight business to out-of-state or out-of-country competitors buying much cheaper diesel fuel, CTA environmental issues expert Stephanie Williams complained.

So if a 33% FT-diesel blend perpetuates a hefty CARD diesel price differential, then California will suffer the consequences of having more freight hauled by out-of-state trucks burning supposedly "dirtier" fuel, she said. This will translate into lost fuel tax revenues and undercut the environmental gains claimed for CARD diesel.

"You can't have clean air if you have loopholes, and right now we have three computer programs that teach interstate trucks how to avoid fueling in California," Williams said.