HVO100 diesel fuel.

The 90% reduction claim is not tailpipe emissions but a reduction in emissions getting the product to the pump AND tailpipe emissions. Actual tailpipe emissions are reduced by around 30% from what I have found.

I've always believed in the mantra if something looks to good to be true it usually is. There's just no way the claims being made stand up to scrutiny. Palm oil plantations are clearly churning out HVO and labelling it as used cooking oil. I mean, who really believes we have the quantities of used cooking oil to replace diesel? It looks to be a total scam and I believe that it will be shown to be so in the near future.

it may be marginally better than diesel

Okay HVO is made from waste products, ie, the oil and other ingredients have completed their initial intended use and are destined to be discarded. The first benefit to the environment is that these used products are now not going into landfill or rivers. Another benefit to the environment is that for every one litre of HVO100 available as fuel for diesel engines is one litre of diesel we don't have to drill for and refine. Remember its not just in cars, its in plant and equipment, boats, ships, trains, basically anything that has a diesel engine. Generation 2 biodiesel - which is what HVO100 is, does not contain palm oil. Generation one biodiesel can contain palm oil and thus is not FAME free. HVO100 is FAME free. Common misconception! HVO100 for Europe is tightly controlled by the EU standard which is very different to the EU standard for Gen one Biodiesel. Component products for HVO100 are not grown specifically for use in diesel engines.

The 90% claim of CO2 reduction is a quoted maximum but in reality the average is 85% or so. This figure is not tailpipe emissions reduction either. If the purest version of the fuel is used, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by up to 90% over the fuel’s life cycle compared to fossil diesel. Actual tailpipe emissions are between 20% and 35% depending on the use. The reduction in NoX is about 15%, CO is down by 25% and smoke is almost non existent. All good for the environment.

My experience with HVO100 is positive, slightly higher consumption, cooler running, smoother running, better cold starting, cleaner oil and no diesel smell. The only issues are higher price and limited availability in Ireland. Its available all over Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, Baltic countries, former Eastern Bloc countries and now Germany. Haulage and distribution fleets all over Northern Europe are using HVO100.

Posts 163 and 164: thank you for balanced posts

AS for the " too good to be true" posters

As for the grease doubters

Actual tailpipe emissions are between 20% and 35% depending on the use. The reduction in NoX is about 15%, CO is down by 25% and smoke is almost non existent. All good for the environment.

To be fair 35%, 15% and 25% are all less than 90% so the statement of "up to 90% reduction in emissions" is indeed true. They could also have stated "over 5% reduction in emissions" and it would also have been true. I wonder why they didn't go with the latter?

The problem really with fuels like hydrogen and HVO is that while they can be environmentally friendly much of it isn't. While you can produce hydrogen from electrolysis and HVO from food waste. However most of the worlds hydrogen is produced from steam methane reforming and most HVO is made with palm oil. Neither particularly good for the environment

There was a lot of hype about e-fuel a few months back. It's effectively hydrogen in a petrol car so again I refer to the above comment about hydrogen

Both fuels also need to be transported (which uses energy and emits carbon) and while hydrogen has zero emissions at the tailpipe HVO has about 30% less than Diesel, which is a welcome reduction don't get me wrong

Considering the EU is aiming for zero emissions only in new vehicles by 2030 HVO will likely not last far beyond 2038 as the average lifespan of new cars is 8 years. Hydrogen would technically be allowed but the manufacturers only have 5.5 years to come up with one

85% reduction is good in fairness, especially when you consider the costs shared with diesel like transporting the stuff to filling stations. It also reduces reliance on the middle east for oil which is no harm either. The mandate for 2035 is for Zero Emissions vehicles only though so it will be short lived unless they can apply it to stuff like shipping and aircraft

I wonder if power plants that use HVO with increased efficiency is a runner for our national grid. Like it or not we will need more electricity in our national grid in the coming years.

Palm oil is currently being phased out in mainland Europe by 2030 so its use in HVO will be allowed until then, without scrutinising the paperwork from HVO suppliers it's impossible to determine how much is used now.

I used hvo for a few fills on our smoky (on startup)1.6crdi kia. There was a huge difference using the hvo, now it is not smoky anymore.

Yeah, not as likely as you think. There's a shortage of mechanics at the moment, and that's only going to get worse. EVs are easier to work on with fewer moving parts and such.

If (big if) sales of ICE cars stop in 2030 (as an example), warranties will last for 5 years, and parts will be available for another 5 years after that. So, the end of life (EOL) for a new car bought in 2030 would be 2040.

Don't get me wrong, there will still be niches. Mercedes will be one, as they will remanufacture any part for any car since the 60s, but it will be super expensive.