A

SYNOPSIS
ON

DIESEL ENGINE FUEL SPECIFICATION

1 Objectives of the study

DOE(Department of energy) has recognized that it needs to understand the potential
impact of these changes on the technical feasibility, research and development needs,
and competitive positioning and benefits of SOFC(solid oxide fuel cells). Specifically, DOE
wanted to:

Characterize the relevant diesel specifications and related regulations with

respect to their timing and effect on diesel fuel and its uses. These should
include: o Fuel specifications applicable for 2010 (this includes the 2006/7
national ULSD specs for the U.S., as well as the Euro V specifications for
Europe) and relevant military specifications, and in contrast to current California
(CARB) specifications;
o CIE regulations expected to be in place for the relevant markets by
2010, including a review of uncertainties in the regulations. This
would include regulations for over-the-road vehicles as well as offroad vehicle applications, idling regulations for trucks, and any
relevant regulations for stationary and military markets;

Evaluate and quantify possible effects on the SECA program technology

targets, timing, and likelihood of success;

Evaluate and quantify possible effects on the market size and benefits to the
nation of the SECA program, considering the impact on both diesel-fueled
SOFC technology and CIE technology.

To focus the analysis, the report concentrates on the following potential SOFC
applications:

APUs for trucks, yachts, and RVs;

Telecoms and other industrial applications;
Mobile generators;
Non-road vehicles;
Military applications, including vehicle APUs and mobile power.

2 Rational of the Study

To achieve this, these early standards controlled primarily the distillation and boiling ranges,
the fuels lubricity, its cold-flow properties, and its cetane number. Currently these diesel
standards are embodied in standards such as ASTM D975-93, and its equivalents under
European and Japanese normalization organizations. In the U.S., as in many other
jurisdictions, several basic grades of diesel fuel are in use (in addition to various low-sulfur
variations):

No. 1 Diesel Fuel - A special-purpose, light distillate fuel for automotive

diesel engines requiring higher volatility than that provided by Grade Low
Sulfur No. 2-D;

No. 2 Diesel Fuel - A general-purpose, middle distillate fuel for automotive

diesel engines, which is also suitable for use in non-automotive applications,
especially in conditions of frequently varying speed and load;

No. 4 Diesel Fuel - A heavy distillate fuel, or a blend of distillate and residual
oil, for low- and medium-speed diesel engines in non-automotive
applications involving predominantly constant speed and load.

In this report we will further focus on No. 2 diesel, since it is by far the most
common type of diesel fuel, and hence the diesel fuel grade of most interest to
fuel cell developers.
Since the 1980s, diesel fuel specifications have increasingly been tightened to meet
environmental objectives, controlling concentrations of major fuel constituents
(aromatics and polyaromatics), as well as impurities (mainly sulfur and nitrogen.)
The tighter fuel specifications and accompanying engine specifications have however
been deemed insufficient to achieve the environmental objectives and hence many
countries continue to tighten specifications. Historically, the emissions from diesel
engines have been much less stringently regulated than those from gasoline engines. This
difference results from a number of factors, including the technical difficulty in reducing
emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides from diesels and the recognition by
regulators that diesel engines are highly efficient when compared with gasoline engines.
However, as many regions around the world continue to struggle

to meet basic ambient air quality standards, and as emissions reduction from
gasoline engines and other sources has been pushed, emissions standards for
diesel engines is receiving renewed attention. Most countries are now proposing
stringent new regulations which would substantially close the gap in emissions
standards between diesel and gasoline engines.

3. Methodology of Fuel Specifications

The most stringent specifications for diesel fuel are those that apply to fuel used in onroad vehicles. This also represents the majority of diesel fuel used (Figure 2-1) [18].
Distillate fuel used in stationary applications is usually referred to as fuel oil (#2 fuel oil
in the U.S.) and faces far fewer regulatory requirements. Specifications for diesel fuel
used in non-road applications (including off-highway diesel, certain military uses, farm,
railroad, and vessel bunkering) usually follow those set for on-road with a sometimes
significant time delay. The following chapter focuses on the specifications for on-road
fuels. The corresponding non-road standards are as follows [12]:

Current non-road standards correspond to pre-1993 on-road standards, no

sulfur limits are imposed and the average sulfur level is about 3,400 ppm;

After 2007, proposed Tier 4 EPA regulations would require non-road diesel
to comply with the same specifications that currently apply to on-road diesel
fuel (500 ppm sulfur limit);

After 2010, proposed Tier 4 EPA regulations would require non-road diesel
fuel to comply with the same specifications as on-road ULSD, required for
on-road applications after 2006 (limit 15 ppm sulfur).

Total US Distillate Fuel Off-Highway Diesel

Oil Consumption:
4%
59 billion gal / yr

Military
1%

Residential
11%
Commercial
6%
Industrial
4%
Oil Company
1%
Farm
6%
Electric Power
3%

On-Highway Diesel
55%

Railroad
5%
Vessel Bunkering
4%

Figure 2-1 US Annual Fuel Oil Consumption in 2001 (Source EIA [18])

Current Diesel Fuel Specifications

As the baseline for this study we use the current California Air Resources Board
(CARB) diesel fuel specifications [1]. These specifications are based on U.S.
federal diesel specifications and were first introduced in 1993. The CARB
specifications differ from the federal specifications by limiting aromatic,
polyaromatic hydrocarbon, and nitrogen content and requiring a slightly higher
cetane number. These more stringent specifications support Californias State
Implementation Plan to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), mainly to limit particulate matter and hydrocarbon
emissions. The CARB diesel specifications offer fuel producers two options:
Meet the reference fuel specifications (

Table 2-1.) As can be seen, small refiners are allowed to produce sulfur with
higher aromatics content but must still meet the same sulfur content as large
refiners;

Produce an alternative fuel formulation and demonstrate (through emissions

testing with standard engines) that the emissions impact is the same as or
better than that achieved with the reference fuel.

Table 2-1 Overview of CARB DF2 (on-road) Reference Fuel

Specifications [1]
Property

ASTM
Test
Method

CARB General
Reference
Fuel
Specifications

CARB Small
Refiner
Reference
Fuel
Specifications

U.S. Federal
Specifications

Environmental
Specifications
Sulfur Content (ppm,
Wt)

D2622-94

500 max

500 max

500 max

Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Content (Vol %)

D5186-96

10% max

20% max

35% max

Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Content
(Wt %)

D5186-96

1.4% max

4% max

Not specified

10

90

Not specified

Natural Cetane Number D613-84

48 min

47 min

40 min

Gravity, API

D287-82

33-39

33-39

33-39

Viscosity at 40F, cSt

D445-83

2.0-4.1

2.0-4.1

2.0-4.1

Flash Point, F (min.)

D93-80

130

130

130

Distillation, F

D86-96

IBP

340-420

340-420

340-420

10% Rec.

400-490

400-490

400-490

50% Rec.

470-560

470-560

470-560

90% Rec.

550-610

550-610

550-610

EP

580-660

580-660

580-660

Nitrogen Content (ppm, D4629-96

Wt)
Engine Operation
Specifications

Since the introduction of these fuels, California diesel fuel has been substantially
cleaner than average U.S. fuel (Table 2-2.) As many refiners have chose to
produce and prove alternative diesel fuel formulations, aromatics content in
California is higher than that specified in the reference fuel standards. This is offset by substantially lower sulfur content. It is noteworthy that currently an
estimated 20% of Californias fuel already had less than 15 ppm sulfur (this
includes gasoline.) In addition to the trade-offs made in producing alternative
diesel fuel formulations, natural overshoot is also partially responsible for the
fact that actual sulfur levels are lower than the regulated limits

4. Expected Contribution of the Study

The most significant change expected in diesel fuel specifications between now
and 2010 is a substantial reduction in sulfur content. In the U.S. sulfur levels will
be reduced to 15 ppm (Wt.) [6] while Europe [4, 5] and Japan will be requiring 10
ppm (Wt.) In the mean time many other countries are tightening diesel fuel
sulfur specifications to around 500 ppm [19], while still other countries are
contemplating joining the U.S. and Europe in moving to 10 to 15 ppm standards.
Another general trend is a harmonization of diesel fuel specifications around the
world, and across application markets. Currently certain categories of non-road
diesels are allowed to use fuels that do not have to meet the most stringent sulfur
and aromatics specifications. By 2010, it appears that diesel specifications will be very
similar for all applications and around the world. This harmonization is driven by
recognition of the economic disadvantages of having an infrastructure for a wide
range of fuel specifications, and by the fact that in order to meet tight emissions
standards, both fuels and engines will be pushed to their technical limits.

Sulfur Specifications
By 2010, diesel fuel sulfur levels will be reduced to 10 to 15 ppm in the U.S., Europe
and Japan (Figure 2-2.) Starting in 2006, the U.S. and Canada will ramp-down levels
rapidly from current levels (500 ppm) with a goal of reaching 15 ppm in 2008. EU
standards will be reduced from the current 350 ppm to 10 ppm in the period between
2004 and 2010 (including an intermediate 50 ppm level required in 2006.) It is also
especially noteworthy that such specifications will likely apply equally to on-road

and non-road use of diesel fuel, whereas today non-road diesel engines are often
exempted from the current specifications and regulations for on-road diesels.
3,500 10,000 3,000

7,000
Diesel Sulfur (ppm) Trends
in Various Countries

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

Sulfur (ppm)

10,000

500
2002
2005

50

15

15

15

2008

ia

10

2011

C
(

a
a

ic
x

a
C

y
C

n
B

hA
t

u
a

o
S

Figure 2-2 Diesel Fuel Sulfur Specification Trends in Various Countries

(Source: IFQC [4])
Figure 2-2 clearly shows that in most of the developed world, diesel fuel sulfur levels
will be regulated down to 10 to 15 ppm by 2010. EU regulations are shown to reach
the 10 ppm level by 2011, but several efforts are under way to accelerate introduction
to achieve complete compliance by 2008 for on-road as well as non-road fuels. In
addition, many of the EU member states are introducing ULSD significantly earlier.
In Sweden, 10 ppm sulfur has been mandatory for several years, while many others
have already moved down to 50 ppm; well ahead of the 2006 EU deadline [20]
(Figure 2-3.) Other countries not shown on the chart such as Australia and New
Zealand will follow either U.S. or European regulations. In addition, some
prospective entrants to the EU, such as Turkey, will have to meet EU standards also.

Many of the other countries in the world with high diesel consumption, such as
China, India, and Russia, will move to standards similar to those now in place in
the U.S. and Europe. Some of these countries, especially in the Far East, are
currently contemplating a more drastic ratcheting down of standards which
would bring them on par with the U.S. and Europe by 2010.

Fuel Sulfur Level (ppm)

Maximum Permitted Diesel

400

EU

350

Sweden

300
Finland / Denmark / UK /
Norway*
Germany

250
200
150
100
50

* Norway is included,
although not an EU
member state

0
0
200

1
0
20

00
2

03
20

04
20

05
20

06
20

00
2

9
008
2

10
200

20

Figure 2- 3 Sulfur Standards for EU and Selected EU Member

States (Source: [20])
Still other countries, especially in central Asia (e.g. Afghanistan) and Africa, there
are no plans for tightening diesel fuel sulfur specifications. With current diesel
fuel sulfur levels at between 3,000 and 10,000 ppm, or non-existing altogether.

Figure 2-4 Overview of Reactivity of Various Sulfur-Containing Diesel

Species on State-of-the-Art Desulfurization Catalysts (From: [21])
The technologies used by refiners to remove sulfur from diesel fuel down to ULSD
levels typically is least effective in reducing sulfur in so-called sterically hindered
dibenzothiopenes and similar species, relative to benzothiophenes and mercaptans
(Figure 2-4.) Such refractory species are thus virtually the only ones remaining in less
than 15 ppm diesel fuel. Unfortunately, such species are also the hardest to remove

with desulphurization systems. The implications of such a shift are discussed in

Chapter 3.

Marine
marine diesel emissions will be regulated to standards similar to the 2000
standards for on-road diesel. In the U.S., larger (greater than 37 kW or 50 hp)
marine diesel engines are regulated separately. Smaller marine diesel engines
(up to 1,000 kW), of most interest here, operate mostly on 2DF. Larger diesels
operate on number 4 diesel fuel (4DF), while large 2-stroke diesels operate on
residual fuel oil (number 6 or bunker C). While eventually SOFC may compete
with diesels that use these heavier oils, early products will likely not and this
report will focus on the applications where 2DF is used.
Between 2004 and 2007 federal Tier 2 standards will be phased in which will
regulate emissions to:

NOx + THC < 7.2 11.0 g/kWh (7.2 7.5 for recreational vessels)
PM < 0.2 0.5 g/kWh (0.2 0.4 for recreational vessels)

In Europe, standards for marine engines will be the same as those for other nonroad engines.

5. List of Activities for Development Timeline

The forecasting the rate of development and the timing of commercialization of
emerging energy technologies is difficult, we can consider the stages each
development has to move through and the characteristic minimum time it takes to
traverse each stage. Figure 4-1 shows these stages as they apply to the development
of energy technologies. Currently, the SECA-based SOFC for less challenging fuels,
such as natural gas, are in the sub-system development stage. The development of
the SOFC stack is probably the pacing factor in overall SOFC development, even
though some prototype systems have been constructed.

Concept
Development

0.5 - 3

Basic Feasibility

1-2

Subsystem
Development

1-3

System
Development

2-4

System
Demonstration

1-3

Market Entry

1-3

Figure 4-1 Overview of Stages of Development for Power Technologies

(Ranges Indicate Minimum Time Required in Years)
The first generation of anodes and reformer catalysts more tolerant of sulfur and
aromatic fuel components currently appear to be undergoing basic feasibility
testing. Based on the timeframes shown in Figure 4-1, it would appear that
sulfur- and aromatic-tolerant anodes and reformer catalysts would require 1-2
years to catch up with the rest of the technology. This may not significantly delay
market introduction of diesel-fueled SOFC as further system development and
demonstration will take at least three to five more years.
While it is possible that these first-generation technologies for diesel SOFC will work
with ULSD, they appear unlikely to be sufficient for conventional diesel. If new
concepts for conventional diesel will indeed be needed, it would take 3 to 8 more
years until the new technology is ready for system integration. With that, it appears
more likely that the development of new approaches for the use of conventional
diesel would cause a significant delay in the market introduction of diesel SOFC.

Impact on Emissions and Energy Use

Although the market for diesel APUs is currently modest, it could grow substantially
if APUs are installed in a larger fraction of heavy duty trucks. Currently, diesel APUs
are primarily used in RVs and yachts to provide power when the main engine is not
needed for propulsion. For a discussion of the motivations and considerations for the
use of APUs in various types of vehicles the reader is referred elsewhere [17, 25].
From a benefits perspective, RV and yacht applications are not very significant
because the average activity (capacity factor) of the engines is estimated to be around
100 hours per year or less, even though there are estimated to be more than 100,000

units on the road [12, 26]. If the projected potential truck market is added to this, it
could roughly quadruple the number of diesel APUs in the US by 2015 (to
approximately 620,000 units). In addition, the truck APUs would have a load factor
of about 0.4 but an activity level of about 2400 hours for long-haul trucks [25, 27].

If, unlike is the case with engines, diesel SOFC turn out to be only marginally
more expensive than gasoline or LPG SOFC, and equally versatile, the market for
diesel SOFC could be much larger, as a many of the current gasoline and LPG
APU users may consider switching to diesel, which they may already be using
for their main engine.

National Benefits of SOFC

As the data in Table 4-1 shows, the main impact of the change in diesel regulations is
the reduction in emissions from the diesel engine APUs. The diesel engine emission
factors were taken from EPAs impact assessment for non-road diesel engines (which
includes APUs) for the relevant years. As described in Chapter 3, currently non-road
engines in this class must meet EPA Tier 1 regulations, and are allowed to operate on
2,000 ppm DF2. However, because these diesel APUs typically share the fuel tank
with the main engine, APUs for RVs and trucks typically use the low sulfur (500
ppm) diesel that the main engine must use. Yachts are allowed to use conventional
(2,000 ppm) diesel for their main engines, so consequently the APU too uses high
sulfur diesel. The figures used are estimates of actual emissions factors, recognizing
that actual emissions will actually be slightly lower than the regulatory limits. The
heat rates of the engines increase slightly (by an estimated 2%) due to the impacts of
EGR and DPF on engine efficiency. Conversely, SOFC efficiency improves slightly
(by about 1%) because of the simplification of the balance of plant. The CO2
emissions scale linearly with the heat rate.

Table 4- 1 Impact of Diesel Regulations on Per Unit National Benefits

of SOFC in APU Applications [12]
Current Diesel Regulations
Engine

SOFC

US 2007 Regulations
Engine

SOFC

NOx Emissions (g/kWh)

7.01

0.03

5.77

0.03

PM Emissions (g/kWh)

0.60

0.01

0.38

0.01

CO2 Emissions (g/kWh)

1518

846

1548

823

17,000

9,480

17,340

9,222

Heat Rate

The cost SOFC APU is expected to be about the same as that of the engine-based
APU for the current technology, assuming that SECAs system cost targets are met.

Table 4-2 Impact (Technical Potential) of Diesel Regulations on Total

National Benefits of SOFC in APU Applications
Impact

Without New

With New Diesel

Diesel Regulations

Regulations

NOx Emissions Reduction (T/yr)

24345

19998

PM 2.5 Emissions Reduction (T/yr)

2057

1274

CO2 Emissions Reduction (million T/yr)

2.950

2.526

191

207

Diesel Fuel Consumption Reduction (million US

gal/yr)

The total benefits, shown in Table 4-2, track the per unit impacts because the technical
APU market potential of engines and SOFC remains the same with the new diesel

regulations. The absolute reductions achieved in this market are very modest
(about 1% to 2%) compared with overall emissions from non-road diesel engines,
and even less when compared with all diesel engines.

Telecoms and Remote Industrial Applications

Market Characterization
The market for remote industrial applications of SOFC is quite fragmented. Of
these, the application to provide baseload power to remote telecoms huts and
signal signs have probably been most widely discussed as a potentially attractive
market for fuel cells. Based on DOE and public data, the installed base for these
markets combined is expected to be about 225,000 units by 2015 [12, 26]. On
average, these units will be larger in capacity than the APUs, with an estimated
average output capacity of about 9 kW.
Unlike the APU markets, units in these markets are heavily utilized, with load
factors of around 0.43 and a utilization of around 6,000 hours per year [12, 26].

6. Problem Envisaged

The problem emissions benefits of diesel SOFC in the selected four markets is cheap
by up to 40% by the introduction of new diesel regulations, while the energy savings
benefits are increased by up to 15%. These benefits depend on the application and
especially on the engine capacity. The most uncertain portion of the implications of
new diesel regulations for diesel SOFC lies in military applications. Based on current
DOD policies and practices, JP-8 will still be used as the single battlefield fuel
beyond the 2010 timeframe. As no changes in specifications are expected, there will
be a growing discrepancy between JP-8 specifications and those for civilian diesel
fuels. This will mean that by 2010, JP-8 will not be compatible with much of civilian
diesel engine technology or with civilian SOFC technology. As the DOD has
recognized in its desire for the development and adaptation of dual-use technology
by the military, this will likely raise the cost of engines and SOFC for the military, as
they will have to be specially developed for the armed forces. Also, it is not clear
how the military will meet domestic environmental regulations for its operations.

Several groups within the DOD have started to address this challenge.
Because of changes in the classification, some categories see a 90% reduction in

PM emissions benefits while others see no change at all.

Quantitatively, the total impact of all of the application markets combined is
shown in Table 4-9. Placed in perspective of all diesel use, the changes in NOx
and PM benefits are considerable on a relative basis. However, when compared
with the impacts of all diesel use, the numbers represent less than one percent of
energy use, and no more than 5% of criteria pollutant emissions.
Table 4-9 Summary of Impact (Technical Potential) of Diesel Regulations
on Total Benefits of SOFC in all Markets Combined by 2015
Problem

Without New
Diesel Regulations

With New Diesel

Regulations

NOx Emissions Reduction (T/yr)

166,600

128,400

PM 2.5 Emissions Reduction (T/yr)

11,500

4,600

CO2 Emissions Reduction (million T/yr)

7.24

8.23

Diesel Fuel Consumption Reduction (million US

gal/yr)

445

492

Problem on Cost and Competitiveness

The changes in diesel fuel regulations have a number of positive impacts on the
cost-competitiveness of diesel SOFC:
The direct manufactured cost of diesel SOFC equipment is expected to be
reduced by about $100 per kW, while the cost of competing engines in these
small-capacity classes is projected ([24]) to be around $20 per kW. This would
move diesel SOFC from a position of cost disadvantage compared with
engines to one of cost advantage.

The impact of new regulations does not appear to significantly change any
difference O&M cost between diesel SOFC and diesel engines. Operating and
maintenance cost for SOFC would be reduced due to the introduction of
ULSD, mostly because the sulfur cartridge exchange interval will be stretched
by a factor of ten. However, this impact would likely be minor (less than
10%) when compared to the major component of SOFC maintenance: stack
replacement. EPA carried out a relatively detailed analysis of the impact of
proposed regulations on diesel engine operating cost and concluded that the
impact would range from an approximately 10% cost savings for the smallest
systems to an approximately 5% cost increase for somewhat larger systems
that have light duty cycles;

If SECA cost targets are met, gasoline and diesel SOFC may be (practically)
interchangeable with ULSD. Both from a cost and a functionality perspective this
provides a major advantage for SOFC in a number of markets, notably APUs.

Manufactured Cost

System Direct

$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Engine

SOFC

Current Standards

Engine

SOFC

2010 Standards

Figure 4-2 Comparison of Equipment Cost for Diesel Engines and SOFC
under Current and 2010 Standards (Projected based on Arthur D. Little
[17] and EPA studies [12]