COMBINED HEAT & POWER


There is no one sizefitsall soluon when considering the construcon industry’s move towards a net zero future. However, one potenal opon open to the sector is using alternave fuels to power onsite equipment. Yet while the general category of ‘sustainable fuels’ is generally understood as a greener opon, there remains much confusion around the praccalies and what this precisely means. With this in mind, Dougie Brown, Naonal Service Manager and technical expert at Aggreko, explores the viability of hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) as a more sustainable dropin fuel for the construcon sector.


E


arlier this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the UK Government would scrap the red diesel fuel subsidy for


construction firms from 2023. This legislation has had a profound effect on the construction industry, with the identification of new fuel sources for on-site generators now a key priority. However, any thoughts on new fuels are overshadowed by the UK Government’s decision to pass into law a to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2050.


The viability of dropin fuels


While future technologies such as more efficient and flexible engines, hybridisation, storage and control systems may offer solutions in the future, action is required in the short-to-medium term. Consequently, when faced with these regulatory changes and the need to decarbonise, construction company stakeholders may consider sustainable drop-in fuels as an immediate and pragmatic potential option.


BSEE HVO – The way forward in construction?


Unlike other more sustainable fuels, it also requires comparatively less energy to heat, making it more efficient and high- performing than biodiesel.


Ricardo tesng


However, in order to gauge the sustainability of HVO, it is vital that generator suppliers carry out stringent testing on their own equipment, but this course of action remains a rarity. Aggreko, however, recently engaged the support of global engineering and


Limited opons


This legislation, which was passed following recommendations from the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC), has had a profound effect on the construction industry. Put simply, site managers cannot treat sustainability as a secondary concern for site managers – it is now a priority, and steps must be put in place to decarbonise in line with net zero targets.


Though the CCC have highlighted that the ambitious goal of net zero emissions by 2050 is ‘necessary, feasible and cost-effective,’ it cannot be denied that it remains an intimidating objective. When combined with a general desire to improve air quality in city centres where the majority of construction takes place, it is clear that construction companies and site managers need to take immediate, pragmatic steps to reduce emissions. Minimising nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions produced by on-site generators is a vital part of this, but purchasing new generators that run on more sustainable fuels is expensive, as is adapting existing equipment. The situation has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus, which has had a profound impact on equipment purchasing budgets within the sector. As such, site managers may not have the financial capital to carry out the work required to adapt to a more sustainable future. However, with standing still not an option, site managers may need to consider more innovative solutions to remain on track with net zero targets.


Read the latest at: www.bsee.co.uk


Contrary to myths about the suitability of drop-in fuels for existing equipment, switching to these fuels does not require businesses to change or adjust their existing generators. As such, they represent a key alternative means of powering future equipment, and it is vital that solution suppliers take the lead in sourcing, testing and offering drop-in fuels that can be used with as little disruption as possible.


For example, specifiers can opt for generators that run on greener drop- in fuels, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO). Though drop-in fuels have previously come under criticism over the sustainability of their sourcing, HVO does not contain dilutions of fossil fuels, unlike regular biodiesel and synthetic diesel, otherwise known as Gas To Liquid, or GTL. Instead, it produced from a wide array of vegetable oil and fats via hydrogenation – that is, treatment with hydrogen. Unlike the esterification process used to create biodiesel, hydrogenation involves the removal of all oxygen from the HVO. As such, it can be stored for far longer without the risk of


contamination, which has been an often-highlighted criticism and limitation of drop-in fuels.


Depending on sourcing, HVO also produces as markedly less carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuels, and as hydrogenation removes water, sulphur and impurities, it is a scientifically ‘pure’ fuel that is more consistent in definition and quality than regular biodiesels. Crucially, unlike conventional biodiesel, which is often used as a part substitute, HVO can completely replace diesel in existing generators, without the need for adjustments or modification.


BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OCTOBER 2020 21


environmental consultancy Ricardo to independently test the performance and green credentials of their own generator fleet when running on this drop-in fuel. Ricardo therefore carried out testing on a selection representative of 80 percent of Aggreko’s generator sets with output ratings ranging from 30 to 500 kVA and all using engines certified at EU Stage IIIA emissions. Each unit was sequentially tested over the five modes of the ISO8178 D2 Cycle, the international standard for exhaust emission measurement for this class of non-road, constant speed equipment.


Each generator’s emissions were assessed based on operation on a standard pump-grade EN590 diesel product, alongside HVO. By measuring emissions and providing a chemical analysis of each fuel, testers could determine a ‘carbon- balance’ fuel consumption. This testing produced results that demonstrated significant emission improvements when the generators were running on the more sustainable biofuel.


Specifically, when compared to pump-grade diesel, HVO produced up to 42 per cent less particulate emissions, up to 35 per cent less carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon and NOx emissions were lowered by up to 25 per cent. Consequently, Aggreko can confirm the viability of HVO as a sustainable fuel for its existing generator range, enjoying emissions reductions with a comparatively small to negligible fuel consumption penalty – a factor that has hamstrung uptake of other sustainable fuels.


In conclusion, the adoption of more sustainable technologies in the construction sector is vital to improving air quality in city centres, and keeping companies in line with net zero targets. Drop-in fuels such as HVO offer a clear and immediate way of doing so, while bucking preconceptions about the efficiency, sourcing and storage issues associated with these solutions. By hiring tested equipment from suppliers such as Aggreko, company stakeholders can therefore enjoy peace-of-mind over potential fuels and equipment, knowing they are making informed choices when looking to reduce their overall emissions without disrupting existing operations. These emission reductions can be further guaranteed because of Aggreko’s ‘Emerging Stronger’ strategy – an overhaul of the company’s fleet carried out during the pandemic to affirm its solutions are rental ready. This includes servicing and reviewing fleet and inventory at a local level to ensure equipment provided is as effective and sustainable as possible. For more information about sustainability and Net Zero, download Aggreko’s latest report, visit:


www.aggreko.com/netzero


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50