Bulk red diesel delivery & storage tanks

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

HVO should probably be completely exempt from all additional duty besides regular VAT. It makes no sense that a "sin tax" would be applied

 

Do some checking into HVO production - it seems that the vast majority is coming from areas that have been deforested and local wildlife killed or moved on.

Palm Oil has a very poor reputation amongst the 'save the planet brigade'.

[jupiter1124]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Do some checking into HVO production - it seems that the vast majority is coming from areas that have been deforested and local wildlife killed or moved on.

Something has to suffer for carbon neutrality, whether it be the birds and wind turbines, deforestation for biofuels, or meltdown risk and nuclear.

 

 

Conflating all the various "green" issues together is doing us a disservice, and it's not really that useful to compare carbon neutrality with habitats. Sad that local wildlife is suffering but that's unfortunately that's what happens when you share a planet with humans.

[cuthound]

You may need to comply with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 if the land you intend to put the tank on is not yours, i.e it is owned by a business such as a marina.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/2954/contents/made

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

HMRC are happy (it was their suggestion) for a 60/40 declaration and they will not investigate a boater making that claim.

 

2 hours ago, jupiter1124 said:

In my view it was rather presumptuous and in fact unfair of them to make such a suggestion. Prior to getting my mooring, as a liveaboard continuous moorer I declared 10% propulsion, and kept detailed logs that showed that this was in fact a fair split for my usage to within around 5%. I was never investigated. Now I declare 60/40, which is close to my actual usage.

Well HMRC made the suggestion at the time the propulsion duty was introduced, so no individual boater has ever had to prove this was an appropriate split for their use.

The background is that the EU (of which we were then a member) decided that boat propulsion use should have the same duty as road fuel, and most other EU countries were already doing this. The UK Government resisted the change as long as they were able to, but eventually had to comply. To avoid leisure boaters either having to pay propulsion duty on all fuel, or install separate tanks for propulsion and non-propulsion fuel, the Government came up with the split duty scheme. The details were developed with the boating industry, and it was agreed that the 60/40 split was a fair representation of the actual split in use across a range of different leisure boat types and activities (not just canal and river craft). In deriving the calculation, the contribution of an engine used for propulsion to also provide electricity and space/water heating was taken into account, reducing the propulsion element, notwithstanding that the electricity and heat was incidental to the main engine use for propulsion. The use of separate tanks would not have allowed this to be non propulsion use, so the split declaration worked in boaters' favour.

The EU however regarded the split declaration basis as non compliant with EU law. In their view any fuel tank supplying a propulsion engine should only have duty paid (white) diesel in it, as is the case for road vehicles. Matters rumbled on for a while until the EU declared they were going to take the UK Government to the European Court over the issue, an eventuality that only didn't happen because we left the EU.

Edited April 20 by David Mack

[Lady M]

Unfortunately, instead of discontinuing the scheme, the government decided that charging the extra duty on boat propulsion was a green initiative.

[jonathanA]

I wonder whether having a 225l barrel delivered maybe a better option ? Plastic bunds to stand a barrel on are readily available. 

 

My understanding is non commercial electricity generation is still allowed with Red. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, jonathanA said:

My understanding is non commercial electricity generation is still allowed with Red.

 

Running a diesel generator on a building site to recharge the electric diggers etc must use DERV.

[jonathanA]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Running a diesel generator on a building site to recharge the electric diggers etc must use DERV.

Yes but  thats clearly commercial use... I didnt even know you could get electric diggers ? Although I have seen electric (agricultural) tractors.

[dmr]

13 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

I wonder whether having a 225l barrel delivered maybe a better option ? Plastic bunds to stand a barrel on are readily available. 

 

My understanding is non commercial electricity generation is still allowed with Red. 

I thought this was the case too, but I spent a quick few mins on the www and could find no mention of it. Do you have a link?

 

A 1000litre IBC is an alternative to 205l drums but both work out MUCH more expensive than bulk delivery, and unless you have a forklift on site there are significant unloading and handling challenges, though you can maybe invent a way to handle the drums. Some companies might be able to deliver with a tail lift truck....but might charge extra for this.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Yes but  thats clearly commercial use... I didnt even know you could get electric diggers ? Although I have seen electric (agricultural) tractors.

 

JCB have been trialling them on construction sites, but so far have found that they only get a very few hours use out of them digging foundations and it took a generator running almost all night to recharge them.

 

Leading the way in electric excavators | JCB

 

There was a long thread on here about them - probably a couple of years ago.

[jonathanA]

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

I thought this was the case too, but I spent a quick few mins on the www and could find no mention of it. Do you have a link?

 

A 1000litre IBC is an alternative to 205l drums but both work out MUCH more expensive than bulk delivery, and unless you have a forklift on site there are significant unloading and handling challenges, though you can maybe invent a way to handle the drums. Some companies might be able to deliver with a tail lift truck....but might charge extra for this.

 

I have the option of filling my own 205l drum and do have access to loader or digger to move it about. Although my current thinking is to use 2 barrels and empty the full one into one on a stillage/bund so I don't have to move a full one around. 

 

Last time  I checked a 205l drum was still cheaper than buying full duty white or red in small quantities. But to be honest it's more about convenience for me tha  out and out money-saving. 

 

I don't have a saved link but did spend quite a bit of time googling the new red rules and I think I ended up on a gov.uk or hmrc page which gave good examples iirc.

[ditchcrawler]

At one time I had a tank for white at home to fill the car and Landrover. I got a reasonable price because they added the heating oil and diesel together for the bulk discount but I was always worried someone would nick it or the tank might leak. It wasn't a bunded tank but it wasn't close to a watercourse.

[dmr]

44 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

I have the option of filling my own 205l drum and do have access to loader or digger to move it about. Although my current thinking is to use 2 barrels and empty the full one into one on a stillage/bund so I don't have to move a full one around. 

 

Last time  I checked a 205l drum was still cheaper than buying full duty white or red in small quantities. But to be honest it's more about convenience for me tha  out and out money-saving. 

 

I don't have a saved link but did spend quite a bit of time googling the new red rules and I think I ended up on a gov.uk or hmrc page which gave good examples iirc.

 

I will do a bit more Googling.

 

I was trying to get HVO and at the time red HVO in drums was more than white at the petrol station, but I suspect the cost differential between HVO and diesel does vary a bit.

[Momac]

4 hours ago, jupiter1124 said:

HVO should probably be completely exempt from all additional duty besides regular VAT. It makes no sense that a "sin tax" would be applied to discourage people from using it, since it's basically carbon neutral and much cleaner than regular diesel 

 HVO is not carbon neutral.

HVO emissions from an engine are certainly less than Diesel.

HVO at present requires rain forest destruction to grow palm for oil.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

 HVO is not carbon neutral.

HVO emissions from an engine are certainly less than Diesel.

HVO at present requires rain forest destruction to grow palm for oil.

The main/only source of HVO in the UK is Crown who state their stuff is from 100% renewable/sustainable sources.

Most of our food could be produced by slave labour in rain forest clearings but that doesn't mean that it actually is.

 

HVO is only ever going to be available in small quantities for Niche markets, I just hope that boating is one of those markets.

As long as it is from a good source then its much better the dinodiesel even though its still far from perfect.

Electric cars are also not carbon neutral because they run on electricty made from gas.

2 hours ago, jonathanA said:

I have the option of filling my own 205l drum and do have access to loader or digger to move it about. Although my current thinking is to use 2 barrels and empty the full one into one on a stillage/bund so I don't have to move a full one around. 

 

Last time  I checked a 205l drum was still cheaper than buying full duty white or red in small quantities. But to be honest it's more about convenience for me tha  out and out money-saving. 

 

I don't have a saved link but did spend quite a bit of time googling the new red rules and I think I ended up on a gov.uk or hmrc page which gave good examples iirc.

 

Yes, the .gov site does say that private electricity generation can use red diesel, its a bit confused/ambiguous about boating but essentially says its ok for boats as long as we don't go to Northern Ireland.

[jupiter1124]

On 20/04/2024 at 18:43, Momac said:

 HVO is not carbon neutral.

Yes, it is.

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

Yes, it is.

 

 

[Momac]

9 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

Yes, it is.

Energy is required to produce HVO and to deliver the fuel.

No fuel is carbon neutral unless it involves no fossil fuel and it is produced and delivered to its point of use by a non industrial process. 

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, Momac said:

Energy is required to produce HVO and to deliver the fuel.

No fuel is carbon neutral unless it involves no fossil fuel and it is produced and delivered to its point of use by a non industrial process. 

 

and I read somewhere that every wind turbine has a little diesel generator inside it, plus they get maintained by people driving diesel LandRovers and even Helicopters, lets get rid of them and go back to good old Britixh Coal 😀.

 

There appears to be an argument "HVO is not perfect so I will just stick with dinodiesel".

As a boater I am pretty much stuck with hydrocarbon fuels, but I reckon I have more than halved our boating carbon footprint over the last couple of years.

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

 

 

There appears to be an argument "HVO is not perfect so I will just stick with dinodiesel".

 

I did not say that .

 

I would be very much in favour of HVO if it is responsibly sourced.  But I am not convinced that it is .

 

My objection is to the inaccurate use of the term 'carbon neutral'

HVO certainly is low emission so better than diesel . But that doesn't make it carbon neutral.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

but I reckon I have more than halved our boating carbon footprint over the last couple of years.

which is pretty good when your footprint is minimal to start with,

if only big businesses or big households and big whatevers would halve their footprint. 
 

I haven’t driven for 18 months now, that’s my little contribution 👍

 

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, Momac said:

My objection is to the inaccurate use of the term 'carbon neutral'

HVO certainly is low emission so better than diesel . But that doesn't make it carbon neutral.

A bit like new houses

[jupiter1124]

That's not really a useful thing to say. The fuel itself is carbon neutral. It's a wholly unreasonable standard to state that the entirety of the energy grid and transportation needs to be carbon neutral before any of the products it touch can be carbon neutral.

 

I consider all biofuels to be effectively carbon neutral, because they are part of a closed loop carbon cycle. Grow plants - absorb carbon - burn plants - release carbon.

 

The truth is a little more complicated than that, but that's the basic principle. Possibly there was biomass growing before the biofuel plants, and possibly that was slightly higher in carbon content (e.g. rainforests). Possibly the biofuel was created with energy derived from fossil sources. Possibly it was transported with fossil fuels. But all of those things serve to muddy the waters. 

 

The problem with your objection is that it equates HVO and mineral diesel as "both not carbon neutral", but the difference is that while both diesel and biofuel takes energy to produce and transport, burning the diesel itself is the primary source of carbon in the one, and burning the HVO does not itself contribute carbon.

 

This is exactly the type of obfuscation that is employed by the oil companies and others with a vested interest in fossil fuels, which is why I must protest. THIS IS DONE DELIBERATELY in order to try to distract people from the basics, which is that growing and consuming biomass is ultimately carbon neutral.

 

There's only one major contributor to carbon, and that's the mining of fossil fuels and other carbon-containing minerals (for example limestone for cement). If we ceased the mining of carbon containing minerals, carbon neutrality would naturally follow, because all other carbon is part of the carbon cycle. It's really as simple as that, so whenever I find someone talking about farming or burning wood or anything else being "bad for the environment", I try to point out that these issues are trivial in comparison to the biggest problem - that humans are increasing atmospheric carbon concentration to prehistoric levels through the release of prehistoric carbon.

[dmr]

7 minutes ago, Momac said:

I did not say that .

 

I would be very much in favour of HVO if it is responsibly sourced.  But I am not convinced that it is .

 

My objection is to the inaccurate use of the term 'carbon neutral'

HVO certainly is low emission so better than diesel . But that doesn't make it carbon neutral.

 

Has anybody actually said HVO is carbon neutral? Most www sites that I have looked say it reduces CO2 by up to 90% (I think).

I suspect 90% is still optimistic as I believe the production process is quite energy intensive, and I really don't know if all the transport "costs" are also factored in.

 

To me there seams little point in producing HVO by cutting down the rainforest as this must give an actual increase in CO2, but then everyday I watch a diesel hauled train go past full of wood pulp that I believe has come from Canada and this counts as green energy. 😀

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Has anybody actually said HVO is carbon neutral? Most www sites that I have looked say it reduces CO2 by up to 90% (I think).

I suspect 90% is still optimistic as I believe the production process is quite energy intensive, and I really don't know if all the transport "costs" are also factored in.

 

To me there seams little point in producing HVO by cutting down the rainforest as this must give an actual increase in CO2, but then everyday I watch a diesel hauled train go past full of wood pulp that I believe has come from Canada and this counts as green energy. 😀

Because it's still much greener than burning fossil fuels, as pointed out above...

 

It's not perfect, but than nothing is... 🙂