Fri 2 Mar 2007
I’d like to hear some thoughts on the recent “Fuel problems” related to an un-named supermarket chain within the blog.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6409025.stm
Specifically maybe stimulating conversation on possible causes? Quality Control issues (or seeming lack of them, which the mass media is sadly neglecting)? Also additional ideas you and your excellent staff at the magazine would like to put forward as to the causes and future prevention.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
We’re just waiting for the announcement - coming very soon - about what the contaminant in the fuel supply is. Ethanol has been ruled out, apparently - silicone is currently in the dock, but silicon has also been mentioned. Probably because most people writing about this don’t know the difference between the two. You can expect a Chem World story on this by the end of the day …
March 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Was it elemental silicon or silicone that was the problem? I cannot imagine where silicon might have come from, but aren’t silicones added to fuels as anti-foaming agents. Just a cynical point of view, but could this simply be a case of the oil company pushing the profit margin as far as it will go, bulking up their oil with cheap silicones as opposed to expensive petrol? They pushed it too far with a detrimental effect on octane rating and have now been caught out as hundreds of drivers suffer.
I’m pretty sure this happened to our car last summer, I’d love to see their QC sheets for quantities of additives…
db
March 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
>>Was it elemental silicon or silicone that was the problem?
That’s the question we’re still trying to answer - it’s very likely to be silicone, but the various agencies and companies involved either don’t know, or aren’t telling.
>>could this simply be a case of the oil company pushing the profit margin as far as it will go?
Personally, I don’t think so - it really does look like accidental contamination, although again, details are pretty sketchy at the moment. So much for me promising a story by the end of Friday … but whatever happens, we’ll have an update today.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Either way - in the wake of this and the associated bad PR, I expect a big shake up on QC for fuels.
The one fundamental and inescapable question - how was defective fuel allowed “out the gates”?
Ultimately this failure, is likely to cost more to fix… than the measures of prevention (or QC) were to implement/carryout from the first instance.
These QC systems, are very much like the Health & Safety philosophy - and I think of them as an integral part of “Sustainable business policies”. I hope others do too?
I a number of years ago when I was young, was privileged to see the R&D facilities of an un-named “British-Dutch” fuel company in the UK. At that time from my view and now as a graduated chemist, QC was an integral part of the company and the systems in place were very extensive.
I wonder if the new players: supermarkets and smaller fuel manufacturers with alternative (to the traditionally based-) supply-processes such as “blending” in diversified sites, not in traditional centralised refineries. Has been a fundamental cause of this? i.e. more involvement by smaller entities “downstream” of the lifecycle - pre-consumer stage.
Has their (relatively inexperienced) involvement caused a neglect of a very necessary side of the business?
It’s something that needs looking at even thinking at the whole developing Biofuels sector (diversification and decentralisation of the industry), due to the shear number of new smaller scale manufacturers now in the market.
Analytical chemistry has a fundamental part to play here - engaging with the Supermarket/smaller manufacturers - to promote the good QC measures and ensure these problems are even rarer than they are currently.
Ultimately I’m sure everyone wants a fair and precise analysis of the cause to prevent future problems. As a result I hope to see improved QC regimes in future - to STRENGTHEN the sector, much like has happened after H&S incidents in the past.
i.e. promotion of a “learning culture” much like in H&S.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Well, here’s what we have so far. It gives you a pretty good idea of the silicon species in the dock and what might have happened during the contamination - interestingly, something very similar appears to have happened in the States …
March 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Harvest Energy say they will now test for silicon ‘as a matter of course’ and are proposing the inclusion of a silicon test in the BS EN 228 standard for unleaded petrol. Petrol supplied by Harvest Energy and Greenergy is now free of excess silicon, both companies have said. Information is yet to be released on how the silicon got there in the first place.”
Very good. This is what we wish to hear along with a commitment to QC.
Importantly if “they’re seen to” be implementing improved QC they should go forward intact, that and public confidence will be renewed. If I were in the business, I’d invite in the media to see this in action.
My final wonder is - will the mass media make as much coverage of the remedial actions?
I hope so, since this gives an incentive for industry to implement good practice - in my humble opinion.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:22 am
For more about Brit Sugar supplying ethanol to Greenergy from their new site at Nissington, Norfolk from Feb (to replace Brazilian source used for over 2 years) and possibility of silicone anti foaming agents (widely used in fermentation of alcohol for drinks industry)see
http://www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com
Brit sugar who are new to the process used Herriott Watt Inst BRD to help and they are used to fermenting alcohol from garins for drinks. Fermenting sugar from beet has problems with all sorts of shit, soil etc., beet residues.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Fermenting or processing from any sort of feedstock presents inherent problems. These are the challenges chemists and chemical engineers face day in day out.
But any of these problems can be overcome given patience.
We have to recall that these are still first generation “bio-refineries”. The technologies and experiences are still really relatively new and developing. It’s not yet clear if this was attributable to anything relating to ethanol. People are “jumping the gun” assuming these are, and if it is proven - well as long as QC practices are adjusted then this should be acknowledged.
The ethanol industry really does seem to get a bad press by the less informed…
I highlight as the anti-thesis of this, Chemistry World where an excellent short and accessible article by Richard Van Noorden, entitled Against the grain was recently published on the state of the industry.
This was contrary to the recent article in The Independent (UK), with it’s recent (5/3/2007) front page THE BIG GREEN FUEL LIE. I must say, given some personal academic insights I have on the actual state of the associated technologies, the article was misrepresentative of the industry.
It provided known issues as apparent and shocking new issues. I object to this pseudo-science (really political statements) being presented to the public in a rather narrow way, where the public is led to believe something that is exaggerated, or which doesn’t understand or highlight that the area is still under-development.
I make this point specifically since “Cellulosic-ethanol” and “Biobutanol” were not mentioned once, throughout the article - both of which I am sure, any academic experts knowledgeable about this area will agree, will dramatically change the industry for the better.
Although each technology presents its own inherent technical challenges too!
This article within The Independent, was contrary to the expert analysis of R Van Noorden, within Chemistry World. Indeed his story mirrored my own posts surrounding the potential and problems within the ethanol industry - which is receiving an undeserved bad-press I feel.
See From “Abandon the use of Ethanol” to “a Re-evaluation of the possibilities of the Ethanol Industry” and the followup post on the 16/2/2007 at my blog: The Green Chemistry Technical Blog.
I call on a more balanced and/or a longer term viewpoint on these issues/challenges by the media, rather than an almost “instant” short-term view - where problems seem to be presented as endemic or fundamental to an entire industry, highly subjectively in the majority of cases.
On the fuel-fouling, as long as lessons are learnt and practices are adjusted - then this is likely to be merely an isolated incident.
The point here is - lessons should be learnt, should be made public and the application of the solutions should be equally exposed to the public.
Tesco made a very good first step towards this yesterday. I just hope that this is followed through. I think doing so will strengthen the image the public has of biofuels.
Anyone with insight into these has to acknowledge that they present some great benefits for society and for future chemical science/engineering, including the use and application of renewable “platform” chemicals/feedstocks from biomass and the development of associated chemistry.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:52 am
Petrol contamination with suspect Silicone has been occuring in the last week in Melbourne Australia. No primary source has yet been identified.