Government review of veg fuels

[drdan]

I have seen an article on the Customs & Excise site...

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_025604

...that says the current guide to which fuels qualify for the reduced duty rate of 27.1p is going to be reviewed shortly.

They specifically say....

Quote:

"Contributions
7. Contributions to the review are welcome, and HMRC will consider all representations it receives. These should be sent to envirotax.bst@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk by 31 August 2006. Any requests for a meeting should also be made to this address." end quote


Are there any interested parties here who may wish to 'contribute' to their debate??? I am NOT suggesting any form of campaign, I simply thought I would bring this to your collective attention in case any individual here felt they would like to get involved.

Unfortunately, they specifically hint that SVO may be explicity excluded from the reduced rate. GRRRRRR. Not sure what justification other than sheer b****dy mindedness they would come up with for that one!

Anyhoo, have a gander if you're interested. Apologies if this has already been flagged by someone else. I wasn't sure if I could spare the hours needed to catch up with THAT thread.

Cheers,

Dan

[drdan]

full text of statement, see attached...

[dirtydog]

they sent me a form through titled "What happens if I no longer (or never did) produce Biofuels?
Im thinking of jacking it in.... too much hassle to fill up and always forget to do tax on time plus it does less miles on veggie so dont really see the point at the mo now im working all the time.

[CaptainBeaky]

Just used the email link in the release to send the following:

Dear Sirs

I note that there is a review to be carried out of the fiscal definition of biodiesel, to ensure that it remain "fit for purpose".

I would like to enquire as to the reasons for the current exclusion of straight vegetable oil (SVO) from the reduced duty rate, when SVO in fact meets or exceeds all the requirements set out in the fiscal definition. As an addendum to this query, I would also like to know why there are representations for SVO to be specifically excluded from the definition - are these representations, in fact, from parties with a financial interest in trans-esterification as a production method?

If the intention of the reduced duty rate is to encourage the use of reduced carbon-footprint fuels, then it makes no sense to exclude SVO, as this does not require any further processing, whereas transesterification requires the use of hazardous chemicals (notably methanol and caustic liquor), the manufacture of which inevitably increases the carbon impact of the fuel, and also requires the disposal of by-products and effluent.
Many diesel engined vehicles will run on SVO without modification, and others will run on it with only minor work, or by mixing in a proportion of mineral diesel (which has already had duty paid on it).
I would like to be reassured that the exclusion of SVO, currently (which does not abide by the fiscal definition, and is therefore possibly ultra vires) and in future, is not merely driven by the desire to maximise the tax take at the expense of those who would otherwise use a more enviromentally friendly road fuel. It is currently actually a financial disadvantage to use the more environmentally sensitive fuel, due to the anomalous treatment of vegetable-based diesel fuels.

The above argument also applies to waste vegetable oil (WVO), possibly to an even greater extent, as this has already been used once, and is therefore making use of a resource that would otherwise go to landfill. The use of WVO is obviously a little more complex than SVO, but is well within the capabilities of most competent home mechanics, and again, WVO (filtered and washed) meets the current fiscal definition, but is, bizarrely, levied duty upon at the full 47.1p/litre, instead of the 27.1 p/litre it merits under the fiscal definition.


I look forward to the results of this review with interest, and with hope that common sense and concern for the environment will prevail.


Yours sincerely

Peter Nicholson BSc (Hons) (Chemistry)



Any odds on a reply?

[CaptainBeaky]

Hmm - first one bounced. The mailto link doesn't insert the full email address into Outlook - I had to resend it and type the full email address in. So far, the second one hasn't bounced...

[BUSHWHACKER]

I have seen an article on the Customs & Excise site...

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_025604

...that says the current guide to which fuels qualify for the reduced duty rate of 27.1p is going to be reviewed shortly.

They specifically say....

Quote:

"Contributions
7. Contributions to the review are welcome, and HMRC will consider all representations it receives. These should be sent to envirotax.bst@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk by 31 August 2006. Any requests for a meeting should also be made to this address." end quote


Are there any interested parties here who may wish to 'contribute' to their debate??? I am NOT suggesting any form of campaign, I simply thought I would bring this to your collective attention in case any individual here felt they would like to get involved.

Unfortunately, they specifically hint that SVO may be explicity excluded from the reduced rate. GRRRRRR. Not sure what justification other than sheer b****dy mindedness they would come up with for that one!

Anyhoo, have a gander if you're interested. Apologies if this has already been flagged by someone else. I wasn't sure if I could spare the hours needed to catch up with THAT thread.

Cheers,

Dan

Well what a surprise!
All the Government and C&E can hear is 'kerching!' when something becomes popular.

[dave.j.robbo]

Any odds on a reply?

With a letter as well written as that, I would hope so!!!

[AuldNick]

Tis the UK Gov, global warming and terrorism = greed and more profit through tax nowt else!

[drdan]

Just mailed off the following...

Dear Sirs,

I note from your website that a review of policy is imminent to amend the definition of biodiesel and related fuels. There a few points I would like to bring to your attention and would be more than happy to elaborate further if you have any questions.

I am a Research Fellow in the School of Chemistry at the University of Nottingham and have an active interest in greener alternative fuels. There is at present a movement within the research and industrial communities to strive towards ‘Green’ chemistry. One of the emerging themes regularly discussed amongst colleagues and I is that the whole picture and history of a process need to be taken into account when assessing a ‘green’ claim. Some supposedly green processes use fewer raw ingredients but require large amounts of energy, others minimise their energy input but fail to take into account the solvents and processing required to synthesise the reagents they are using. Others produce wastes that require further treatment or disposal.

When assessing bio-fuels for their environmental impact and their carbon-dioxide load it is critical that the full impact of a process is considered. There are a variety of vegetable oil derived, diesel quality bio-fuels that may be used with little or no modification to a modern diesel engine, all of which meet or exceed the definition of Biodiesel as laid down in earlier legislation. The key modification is the reduction of the fuel’s viscosity so as to improve its flow within the engine and its spray pattern into the combustion chamber. This can be performed simply by heating the fuel (typically by electrical heating elements or recirculation of the engine coolant) or by diluting with mineral diesel in varying amounts, by far the most common method. Viscosity modification may also be carried out by chemical modification.

Straight vegetable oil (SVO) or filtered waste vegetable oil (WVO) are probably the most environmentally friendly biofuels as they are produced purely from biomass and can be used directly in a vehicle (no modification required) when mixed with mineral diesel or used pure when heated. The heat to decrease the fuel viscosity comes directly from the fuel itself through combustion in the engine or via electrical heating elements which are powered from the battery which is in turn charged by the engine, driven by the fuel. Thus these fuels have a near-neutral carbon footprint.

Producers of other bio-diesel fuels, such as BioPower, market a blend of WVO with solvents and other mineral agents to reduce the fuel viscosity. It is not clear to what extent transesterified (see later) products are included in these cases. Despite their claims to the contrary, this is not as ‘green’ as SVO/WVO. The other components of the fuel will have been produced through non-biomass routes and thus their combustion will add to the global carbon load, as would any crude oil derived product.

Transesterified fuels, those that are more commonly referred to as Biodiesel are produced by the chemical removal of glycerol from vegetable oils by substitution of alcohols (either methanol or ethanol) using sodium hydroxide as a reagent. This process has considerable disadvantages as a ‘green’ process. Firstly, and most significantly, it produces large amounts of glycerol which require disposal. Secondly the methanol typically used needs to be produced at a great energy cost as does the sodium hydroxide reagent. The plants which perform this transesterification transformation also require energy to heat, pump and circulate the oils which comes from the electrical grid, again adding to the carbon load.

The market for biofuels is growing and interest is spreading among consumers. As a consequence small biofuel producers are springing up around the country, each with their own ‘special blend’ of Biodiesel. These groups are competing and are actively trying to sabotage the reputation of each other’s product. It is absolutely imperative that in formulating any plan for the definition of biofuels and their tax levy that an unbiased approach is taken and that fuels are assessed on their merits alone, and also that opinions are given respect but not taken as fact unless corroborated. The facts as I have stated them above can be verified from the scientific literature or indeed from any public library. As an aside I must emphasise that use of the web as a resource is dubious. Anyone can write anything they please with little or no evidence to back up their claims.

It is also vitally important to remember that the whole point of the alternative fuels movement is to prevent detrimental effect to the environment. Thus it should be on these grounds that fuels are assessed. Allowing political motivations or using this process as a means to increase revenues would be a travesty. The same would be true of giving in to attempts by Biofuel entrepreneurs to corner the market for their own particular fuel type.

To make the biggest impact on consumers’ carbon footprints, it is necessary not only to persuade the intelligent free-thinking consumers but to make Bio-fuels an attractive option to all, by emphasising the joy of carbon-neutral motoring but mostly by making it cost effective. If it were cheaper to use Bio-fuels then customers would switch willingly and in great numbers. If there is only an environmental benefit then I suspect, sadly, that most consumers will not bother to make any change.

In conclusion, therefore, I urge you to consider the potential benefits of SVO/WVO in addition to more well-known Bio-fuels and to ascribe tax rates appropriately. In my opinion to exclude SVO/WVO from the lower tax bracket would be going against the point of the exercise. Give the freedom to the consumer and the community to explore the various fuels and in time a winning candidate will surely emerge. Now is not the time to be restrictive but to create incentive for ingenuity.

Yours,

Dr. D. H. Marsh

[stormforce]

Thats a very good letter Dan.Let us know when you get a response from them

[BUSHWHACKER]

Here's the letter I sent.......



Dear Sirs,
You're all money grabbing ba****ds and have no concerns whatsoever about the environment!

[MattF]

Here's the letter I sent.......



Dear Sirs,
You're all money grabbing ba****ds and have no concerns whatsoever about the environment!

You've condensed those last two letters beautifully.

[drdan]

There was me striving for eloquence, but Vince, I gotta say, I would much rather have sent your version! Do you reckon it's too late to send a PS?

[Morr]

There was me striving for eloquence, but Vince, I gotta say, I would much rather have sent your version! Do you reckon it's too late to send a PS?

Very well written indeed Dan
One small factual correction tho, your letter implies that when either Methanol or Ethanol is used in the production of BioDiesel, Sodium Hydroxide is used as the reagent. With Ethanol, Potassium Hydroxide is more commonly used as the reagent (Sodium Hydroxide still works but is slower to dissolve).
I don't mean to appear critical, just tidying up a little

[CaptainBeaky]

Great letter, Dan. Keep them coming, folks - surely the more soundly-argued letters like this that HMRC receive the less mind-bogglingly remote the chance of getting some sense out of them becomes...