Around 2 years ago, I warned a large corporate client about this issue How will ultra-low sulfur diesel affect data center generator performance? Although I fully support the use of ULSD in the transportation fleet, most of the backup and stationary diesel engines out there are quite a bit older than the average electronically controlled transportation diesel engine I don't think its reasonable to expect corporations, and especially hospitals, to replace a 20-30 year old generator with a brand new one. Although these engines are old, most have been exceptionally well maintained and are in excellent mechanical condition Except for the issue of dealing with modern ULSD. It would be like expecting a 1968 car to run well, with no problems, on 15% ethanol
Benefits still outweigh the downsides, imo. Even a perfectly maintained 10 year-old generator has much higher emissions than a new unit, upwards of 95% for NOx and PM, and that's just comparing T1 to T4. Who knows what the earlier engines are putting out. The other question is what the impact of maintaining a high-sulfur infrastructure solely for backup generators would be, and how many people would ruin their shiny new oxidation catalysts by trying to save a few cents...
Replacing a generator is even harder to justify than a vehicle given the generator is probably infrequently used.
Backup generators are infrequently needed, but in many critical situations, such as hospitals, they are absolutely essential. Backup generators are routinely "exercised" for about 20 mins at least once every 2 weeks, preferably once a week Replacing a prime mover in a large generator is a pretty expensive proposition. Depending on size, you're talking about $25,000, potentially $145,000 for the larger generators There aren't too many 35 year old vehicles as daily drivers. In most hospitals and telecom buildings, its pretty easy to find a 35 year old prime mover, still in excellent condition. To throw away the motor just because the new fuel is no longer compatible with the fuel injection system, is a bit asinine
So sell retrofit injector kits and, uhh, "clean up" :_> The notion of a hospital (or anyone) spewing known potent carcinogens into the air once a week is more asinine.
If all we were talking about is generator sets, then there really isn't any debate. But it doesn't seem like you're looking at the issue in the context of all diesel equipment. Generator replacements or retrofits are one of the main downsides to ULSD. But there are tremendous benefits from the program, and those overall benefits, imo, offset the impact of facilities having to replace/retrofit perfectly working generators. Obviously if you own one of those working units, it is unfair.
Well, with budgets stretched razor thin as it is, to expect a hospital to cough up >$100,000 to replace a generator, is a bit unfair. True enough, there are retrofit kits for the most popular prime movers. The cost approaches 30-50% of the cost of a new genset, as the labor to replace the components isn't that much less, and in some cases is MORE, than to just replace the entire unit I guess for those not directly impacted by ULSD, it's no big deal. For those who are faced with major repairs, and replacement, due to the use of ULSD, it's one more whack on an already tight budget
jayman, I understand where you are coming from with this, but it is just one of those costs that comes with the migration. My experience with hospitals has been that they have more than enough money to cover stuff like this...I could go off on some of the shenanigans some were pulling as supposed non-profit entities. Let's just say that a previous place I lived had some ridiculously high medical costs and the hospital was hurting the community with it's monopolistic position. They seemed to be the primary real estate holder in the municipality as well and many for profit businesses were leasing property from them on which they were not being taxed...again setting the rest of the community back. Quality of service wasn't that great either so we put off some care until we moved. The one part of the U.S. that has not experienced this recession or even the last is the health care industry.
At work we are installing a 435kW prime rated diesel generator for a 20,000 SF courthouse. It is costing almost $500k. A hospital will typically have two generators, one for everything and a second (redunandant) backup generator for emergency lighting and elevators. The cost for a hospital generator (prime rated) and a secondary (standby rated) will easily break $2 million dollars. The sulfur in diesel helps with lubricity. ULSD causes increased wear in the fuel system, especially the injectors. You can add diesel treatment to help. I am sure a typical hospital would rather add diesel treatment than replace a generator.
In Canada and other countries with social medicine systems, it simply is NOT in the budget to perform such an extensive upgrade. It really isn't an upgrade, but mandated due to changing technology, in this case the fuel properties There is nothing wrong with a 30-50 year old prime mover, assuming it has been properly maintained. Indeed, a lot of the older prime movers, such as Nordberg and Vivian, were over-engineered and over-built to a level that modern folks would find astounding The Nordberg V-20's and the Radial 10's were used as prime power in applications that demanded absolute reliability. They were finally scrapped - in some cases 60 years after installation - not because they were broken or worn out, but because they could no longer meet emissions They didn't really understand the impact of emissions back then. The Prime Movers +50 years old, were designed to run 24x7 for years, even decades, with only routine maintenance. That seems a bit low. Mind if I ask who the vendor is? What about mechanical and electrical room work? Yes, a tiered approach is very common. Depending on the size of the campus, at least two gensets, possibly 10 or more. To ensure maximum availability, the gensets can be interconnected/reconnected, in case a single generator suffers a catastrophic failure Counting site prep, mechanical room, electrical room, interconnect/reconnect; yes, easily exceed that figure Older inline/plunger pumps and injectors are very badly affected by this issue. The newer inline and rotary pumps appear to much better tolerate ULSD. Typically anything made before 1993 will be affected Some of the additives, such as those from PRI, are very good and I highly recommend them. For stationary applications, such as emergency gensets, the biggest problem is diesel getting old and having biological growth By "exercising" the genset - preferably 20 mins once a week - you may prevent sludge and biologic growth in the prime mover and day tanks, but the primary tanks and piping may still have problems. I've seen inline strainers for primary tanks, where the fuel was probably 10 years old, that were plugged solid with a gooey muck The additives can help, if they are proven additives. The Military also specifies a very short list of approved additives that work. The problem is when a well meaning client just pours any old snake oil into the primary tanks, and/or day tanks. They can cause a lot more trouble than they solve No doubt!
Seeing as how this is an off road use, couldn't they use no. 2 heating oil for fuel, or is that too much sulphur?
Heating fuel and diesel fuel have somewhat different properties. Although an older diesel engine with an inline/plunger style injection pump will run on it, there are better choices For example, the US Military has a general recommendation of using jet fuel, JP-8, for everything, including diesel powered equipment. This is a good idea logistically, but JP-8 can be quite hard on modern common rail fuel injection
I completely agree that it's unfair for these facilities. But there are larger issues at stake here and that is why ULSD is the future with no going back. How Air Pollution Can Damage the Heart - TIME http://www.energy.wsu.edu/documents/renewables/Retrofitparticualtefilters.pdf "DOE found that DPFs cease to reduce PM emissions with fuels containing 150 ppm sulfur and become a source of PM emissions with 350 ppm sulfur fuels. Overall, baseline PM emissions increased as the fuel sulfur level increases. At 3 ppm sulfur both devices reduced PM emissions by 95 percent, and at 30 ppm sulfur the PM reduction efficiencies of both devices dropped to the around 72 percent."
