37|

Biodiesel 2009/2010Report on the Current Situation and Prospects –

Abstract from the UFOP Annual Report

Claire-Waldoff-Straße 710117 Berlin

E-Mail: info@ufop.deInternet: www.ufop.de

September 2010

Edited by:Dieter Bockey

Photo credits:UFOP

Published by:Union zur Förderung von Oel- und Proteinpflanzen e. V. (UFOP)

2009/2010 Report

Biodiesel 2009/2010

Public Relations

Expert Committee for Biofuels and Renewable Raw Materials

Members of the Expert Committee for Biofuels and Renewable Raw Materials

Attached Tables

2

16

20

26

27

Contents

Table 1: Domestic Biofuel Consumption, 2007–2009

Table 2: Report on Tax Relief for Biodiesel as a Clean Fuel

Table 3: EU Biodiesel Production and Capacities

Graph 1: Breakdown of Biodiesel Employment by User Groups

Graph 2: Biofuel and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Rates

Graph 3: European Biofuel Additive Quotas, 2010

Graph 4: REDcert – the Associations’ Certification System

Graph 5: Standard GHG Emissions for Biofuels

Graph 6: Climate Protection Quotas for Biofuels as of 2015

Graph 7: Parameter Variation – Cultivation

Comparison of Various Calculation Approaches (without Allocation)

Graph 8: Parameter Variation – Cultivation

Comparison of GHG Emissions; Nitrogen Fertilizer Manufacturing

3

4

6

3

5

8

11

13

13

14

15

Index of Tables and Graphs

|32|

Even though the economic situation in Germany has improvedsubsequent to the latest financial crisis, and although exportscurrently drive economic developments, the biodiesel economyboth in Germany as well as the remainder of the European Unionhas been unable to profit from this. With its scrap scheme, theFederal Government was able to bridge the slump in demand forpersonal vehicles, allowing car manufacturers to now service theunexpected level of new foreign demand for vehicles withoutany significant employee reductions. However, the situation onthe fuel manufacturing side is completely different. In particu-lar, the economic crisis was felt when it came to sales of dieselfuels. According to figures provided by the Mineral Oil EconomicAssociation, approximately 20.2 million tons of diesel fuel weresold in 2009, representing a reduction of around 0.3 milliontons (./. 3.2 percent) compared with 2008. The Association seesthe primary reason for this in the environmental reward forscrap vehicles within the context of Economic Package 2 whichresulted in a further “dieselification” of the private vehicle mar-ket. This explains why diesel fuel consumption fell a mere 0.4percent during 2009. In the view of the UFOP, the improved eco-nomic situation should, during 2010, again result in an increasein diesel sales and an associated increase in biodiesel as anadditive component (B7), since this economic recovery will alsoaffect the shipping trades.

Despite this outlook, the situation within the German biodieselindustry has not improved. On the contrary, the time periodcovered by this report was characterized by an unexpected levelof consolidation within the German biodiesel industry. This isdue not merely to the fact that at around 50 percent, the bio-diesel capacity in Germany was once again significantly under-utilized, but also to the fact that this lead to biodiesel manu-facturers either filing for bankruptcy or reorganizing several pro-duction facilities into new corporate structures. Let us use theexample of the entry of the Swiss raw materials dealer, Gelncore,into Biopetrol Industries. This financial restructuring createdthe foundation for the continuation of the BiopetrolCorporation. Another example is the takeover of the biodieselfacility and refinery of G.A.T.E. Global Alternative Energy GmbHat the Wittenberg plant by Louis Dreyfus CommoditiesWittenberg GmbH. Apparently, a diversification, particularly inlight of the international raw materials procurement situation, isimperative in order to ensure competitiveness of the home bio-die-sel industry in view of the increasing excess capacity inEuropean biodiesel production. Investment decisions, includingfederally supported investment help for facilities designed withthe sole object of the reesterification of vegetable oils and thesale of biodiesel and glycerin, and resulting from an increase inthe number of international mergers, coupled with the rawmaterials markets on the one hand, as well as the biodiesel sales

markets on the other, are difficult to reach in a competitivemarket – particularly since the tax relief on biodiesel as the soleenergy source has, politically at least, become a “runout model”with the introduction of the biofuel quota law in 2006. As longago as 2003, the energy tax guideline with its condition of anannual over compensation provision, in principle foresaw thatthe tax credit would merely assume a promoting function as aninstrument of market introduction. The anticipated returns oninvestment at the beginning of 2000 might have resulted inpossibly excessively hasty investment decisions, both domesticas well as foreign with a view to the German market. However,the EU Commission has currently initiated a renewal of the ener-gy tax guidelines, which could result in an improvement in theposition of biofuels or fuels containing biofuels as an additiveshould the greenhouse gas balance for the associated fuel beused as a tax differentiation. On 06/23/2010. Commissionmember Semela, who is responsible for tax-related issued, intro-duced his concepts regarding a restructuring of the energy taxguidelines (2003/96/EG) to the remaining commission mem-bers for discussion, but did not receive their approval.Therefore, there will be no presentation of draft guidelines inthe autumn of 2010. The underlying objective of the new guide-lines is to create incentives for CO2 reductions in those privatesectors which are currently exempt from the European TradingScheme, ETS (this also includes agriculture and forestry), byexpanding the energy tax by a CO2-related component. Itshould, however, be noted that any alteration of the energy taxguidelines will undoubtedly be a long and difficult process, par-ticularly since the member nations can only unanimously appro-ve such a resolution. Despite this, the biofuel economy wouldbe well advised to table associated discussions as part of thepolitical debate.

Market Situation for Biodiesel – Regressive TrendContinuesDuring 2009, the depression in clean fuel marketing was unableto be halted by the increase in the additive component from5 to 7 percent by volume introduced in February, 2009 (modifi-cation of the 10. BImSchV). While biodiesel distribution increa-sed by approx. 670,000 tones (refer to Table 1) compared to2008, this was offset by the significant slump in marketing bio-diesel as a clean fuel which occurred in 2007. At this time, thelevel dropped from 1.082 million tons to only about 241,000tons during the 2009 calendar year. This represents a reductionof approx. 78 percent. During the same period, vegetable oilfuel marketing dropped from just under 400,000 to a mere100,000 tons. Compared with 2007 and 2008 and analogous tothe decline in clean fuel marketing, this represents an equallydramatic decline. Marketing of biodiesel and vegetable oil willcontinue with this declining trend during 2010. 2010 estimati-

Biodiesel 2009/2010

owners was only around 96,000 tons. As an additive to dieselfuel, the maximum 5 volume percent permitted in 2007 repre-sented approximately 1.4 million tons. On the other hand, in2009, 2.3 million tons were already added as a result of theadditive share being increased from 5 to 7 percent, and becausechanges in the tax regulations coupled with raw material priceincreases for biodiesel resulted in the clean fuel market shrin-king to a total of 241,000 tons

In view of this situation, the UFOP began at the year’s outset tointensely participate in the discussions surrounding an alterati-on to the energy tax law. As part of the calculations regarding

ons for biodiesel distribution as an additive lie in the range ofapprox. 2.2 million tons and, for clean fuel marketing, approx.215,000 tons. This reduces the decline in biodiesel marketing byapprox. 100,000 tons when compared with 2009 and shouldreach a level of 2.45 million tons. In turn, this represents anapprox. 8 percent share of the diesel market.

Graph 1 breaks the employment of biodiesel down by usergroups and illustrates the radical change in biodiesel use in2009, when compared with 2007. During 2007, approx. 1.7 mil-lion tons of biodiesel where employed by the trucks in the trans-port industry, while the demand on the part of passenger car

Graph 1: Breakdown of Biodiesel Employment by User Groups

Source: AGQM based on information provided by the BAFA and on our own estimates

Table 1: Domestic Biofuel Consumption, 2007 – 2009, in 1,000 Tons

Biodiesel additiveB100

Total biodiesel + VOIL

2007

1,423.31,821.3

Total for biodiesel 3,244.6755.8

+ 41.1 %- 77.8 %

- 15.5 %+ 3.4 %

- 0.4 %

- 6.6 %- 75.1 %Vegetable oil VOIL

4,000.429,058.8

4.9 %31,635.9

Diesel fuelsOf which, additive shareDiesel fuels + B100 + VOILOf which, biodiesel + VOIL 12.6 %

+ 663.5- 841.8

- 479.8+ 1,030.60

- 112.6

- 178.4- 301.4

Changes2009 to 200820102

2,239.3300.0

2,604.8

2,539.365.5

2009

2,276.3240.6

2,616.930,936.2

7.4 %31,276.8

8.4 %

2,516.9100.0

2008

1,612.81,082.5

3,096.729,905.6

5.4 %31,389.4

9.9 %

401.42,695.3

2) Forecast Source: BAFA

2009/2010 Report

|54|

increased to 10 percent in annual increments by 2020.• The current requirement to decrease greenhouse gas emissionsfrom fuels, which does not take effect until 2015, will bebrought forward to 2013, and will be fixed at 4.5 percent.

• Until 2020, the greenhouse gas reduction requirement increasesin 0.5 percent increments to a total of 8 percent (s. Graph 2,page 5).

However, in order to attain this objective, larger shares of biofu-el that exceed the standards set forth in EN 590 (B7) and EN228 (E10) must be approved. For this reason, and starting in2015, the voluntary addition of bioethanol to gasoline (E20),and the addition of 30 percent by volume to truck diesel fuelmust be approved in the 10. BImSchV. This approval would per-mit the combined rate of greenhouse gas emissions from trafficto be reduced by 88 million tons by 2020. In turn this wouldpermit the climate protection objective as well as the EUobjective of a 10 percent share of renewable energy in traffic tobe achieved more quickly and more efficiently than is the casewith the current laws. The current biofuel rate in Germany is amere 6.25 percent. Beginning in 2015, this biofuel rate is to bereplaced by the requirement to reduce traffic greenhouse gasemissions by, initially, only 3 percent. Depending on the GHGefficiency of the added biofuels, this may actually represent adecline in the demand for biodiesel. The question of volume sce-narios (including hydrotreated vegetable oils – HVO) underwhich this objective can be attained thus arises.

under compensation in conjunction with the tax relief (refer toTable 2) submitted to the Federal Government and to theFederal Parliament, the association was able to enter its recom-mendations for altering the tax code into the debate. Under dis-cussion was a further reduction in the tax rate to 10 cents perliter. However, this debate occurred at the same time as thefinancial crisis so that, as part of the economic growth accelera-tion package, the respective taxes on biodiesel and vegetableoil fuel of 18.60 and 18.46 cents per liter for the period bet-ween 2010 and 2013 must, today, be regarded as a success.However, this resolution is also subject to an annual overcom-pensation examination. The Federal Government will present itsreport to parliament annually at the beginning of September.

In view of the introduction of the GHG quotas beginning in2015, the question of a marketing strategy arises, which wouldresult in an improved utilization of biodiesel production capaci-ties while simultaneously opening improved options for the bio-ethanol sector in Germany. A joint memorandum containing thefollowing points related to the future design of the additiveregulations governing biofuels has been entered into the politi-cal debate by the UFOP, together with the Federal Association ofthe German Bioehtanol Industry (BDBe), and the GermanBiofuel Industry Association (VBD):

• The biofuel rate currently limited to 6.25 percent until 2014should be increased to 7 percent by 2011 and, should then be

.

HVO – a Perspective?From the point of view of raw material producers, the questionarises as to whether the hydrotreatment of vegetable oils (HVO)should be developed into a European-wide strategy. Against thisbackground, the UFOP promotes intended projects to employ bio-diesel and HVO as additives to diesel fuels, with the question ofwhether at best the proportion of biodiesel can be increased(refer to "Expert Committee on Biofuels and Renewable RawMaterials"). What must, however, be borne in mind with thisstrategic approach is the fact that, the production of HVO elimi-nates the raw material advantages of rapeseed oil for biodieselmanufacture. The inherent necessity of employing biodieselbased on rapeseed oil, particularly during the fall/winter/spring months (CFPP value/ease of flow), is eliminated.

From a chemical viewpoint, hydrotreatment causes vegetableoils to be practically “equalized”. However, when compared withpalm oils from Asia or Columbia, rapeseed oil has a significant

*) as of 2007, with a 25% share of soybean oil

Sources: AMI Market Special Oil Cultivation + Biofuels, UFOP Market Information Oil Cultivation and Biofuels, VBD Member Questionnaire

Table 2: Report on Tax Relief for Biodiesel as a Clean FuelOver/Under Compensation Development (Non-Integrated Facilities)

Rapeseed oil ex mill*Average retail sale price (ex mill)

Refining(rapeseed oil cleaning and preparation)

Added technical expenses(decreased oil change intervals and oil filter changes)

Excess consumption(lower energy content compared with fossil fuels)

Purchase incentive(incentive to consume biodiesel)

Energy tax(as of August, 2006)

Total for biodiesel (excluding VAT)(theoretical biodiesel price when compared with fossil diesel)

Diesel (incl. energy tax, excluding VAT)(average service station price for fossil diesel)

Over compensation (+)Under compensation (-)

0.56

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.90

0.97

+0.07

2006Jan. – Jul.

0.56

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.09

0.99

0.95

-0.04

2006Aug. – Dec.

0.54

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.09

0.97

0.94

-0.03

2007Jan. – Jun.

0.71

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.09

1.14

1.02

-0.12

2007Jul. – Dec.

0.87

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.15

1.36

1.14

-0.22

2008Jan. – Jun.

0.74

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.15

1.23

1.09

-0.14

2008Jul. – Dec.

0.54

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.18

1.06

0.88

-0.18

2009Jan. – Jun.

0.55

0.04

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.18

1.07

0.92

-0.15

2009Jul. – Dec.

Price, in EURO, per liter

image advantage. The palm oil industry is subject to “ongoingcriticism and monitoring” by environmental groups. In Germany,NGOs are continuously noting the origins of raw materials, withindividual actions regarding their use for foodstuffs, such as theKitKat bar case at Nestlé being brought out. Therefore, in futu-re, the employment of a given raw material will depend less onits price, but also on its image – this could present an opportu-nity for rapeseed oil.

And Rapeseed Oil Fuel?While, despite extensive competitive restrictions, biodieselmanufacturers continue to remain open to the additive marketboth in Germany as well as throughout the other EU Membernations, marketing vegetable oil fuels has experienced a break.If, in 2007, 756,000 tons of vegetable oil fuel were still distri-buted, this figure is forecast to drop to only approximately64,000 tons in 2010. The reasons for this include changes to thetax code, coupled with simultaneous increases in rapeseed oilprices. For several years, practically no passenger vehicles havebeen refitted to run on vegetable oil fuels. As the area with byfar the greatest distribution potential, the same can also be saidof the commercial vehicle sector. Against this background, theUFOP, the BDOel and the Technology and Promotion Center forRenewable Energy in Straubing, invited participants to anexpert workshop at which a proper inventory with respect to thesituation in the distribution markets for decentralized oil mills(rapeseed fuel, cook-ing oil, rapeseed animal feed cakes) couldbe undertaken so that the need for action and solutions couldbe discussed. During the time period of the report, the majorityof decentralized oil mills were already closed.

Graph 2: Biofuel and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Rates

Scenario 27% by volume of biodiesel = 2.189 million tons9.4% by volume ethanol = 2.048 million tons

Scenario 17% by volume of biodiesel = 2.189 million tons5 % by volume ethanol = 1.094 million tons2.1% by volume HVO1 = 0.579 million tons 1hydrotreated vegetable oil

Options for meeting the 6.25 calorie percent total quota

Scenario 36.7% by volume biodiesel = 2.089 million tons10% by volume ethanol = 2.189 million tons

Scenario 2: The volume of ethanol additive increases by 950,000 tons at the expense of HVO.Scenario 3: The volume of ethanol additive increases a further 140,000 tons compared with

the current biodiesel additive.

2009/2010 Report

Logistics(shipping / storage / delivery, service station margin)

Esterification minus glycerin credit(rapeseed oil is converted into rapeseed oil methyl ester and glycerin)

|7

800,000 tons coming on line by the end of 2010 in theNetherlands. Based on these statistics, there exists an increa-singly large gap between production capacity and actual pro-duction, currently amounting to approx. 12 million tons. Fromthe point of view of the UFOP, this situation can only be rever-sed if the politically anchored volume goals in the individualmember nations can, as quickly as possible, be adjusted to theappropriately modified European standard for diesel fuel as of2011. This new standard permits an additive share of 7 percentby volume of biodiesel. This corresponds to a biodiesel volumeof around 14 million tons (based on 200 million tons of dieselfuel used within the EU) and at least 7 million tons of RME or acorresponding demand for rapeseed oil (= approx. 17 milliontons of seedlings or 4.8 million hectares of planted area).

Despite this, the majority of the biodiesel capacity remainsuntapped – the EU must export biodiesel to third countries. Butexactly the opposite situation is actually the case. Imports to theEU (F.O. Licht: approx. 2 million tons), particularly of biodiesel

6|

The Situation in the European UnionAccording to information from the European Biodiesel Board(EBB), approx. 9 million tons of biodiesel were manufacturedduring 2009 within the European Union (refer to Table 3) with atotal consumption of 10.8 million tons (source: Kingsman).With 2.54 million produced tons, Germany leads France with its2 million produced tons and Spain with 0.86 million tons.According to the EBB information, this stands in contrast with aproduction capacity of, by now, nearly 22 million tons. Thisindicates that, since 2008, capacity has been expanded byapprox. 6 million tons. While German capacity has stagnated atapprox. 4.9 million tons for several years, significant capacityexpansions have taken place in Spain (4.1 million tons), France(2.5 million tons) and Italy (2.4 million tons). As a limitingfactor to the EBB statistics it should, however, be noted thatthese production capacities also include values for the manu-facture of hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO). Thus, for exam-ple, the firm of Neste Oil AG in Finland currently has a pro-duction capacity of over 340,000 tons, with an additional

from Argentina, continue to increase. No reversal of this trend cancurrently be discerned, as other third countries (the US) havetheir own problems with excess capacity.

While bioethanol complies with the requirements of theEuropean Fuel Guidelines (2009/30/EG) as suitable for conver-sion for the market introduction of E10, the standards for E10itself are merely in the initial stages of development. Due toconcerns on the part of the motor vehicle and mineral oil in-dustry, a rapid consensus to alter the European Diesel FuelStandard and permit the introduction of B10 cannot be antici-pated. On the contrary, the “Biofuel Roadmap” worked out bet-ween the German motor vehicle and mineral oil industry com-mercial associations and the biofuel industry and the mineraloil dealers, and the German Farmers Association, basicallyforesees the continued compromise of 7 percent by volume ofbiodiesel as an additive to conventional diesel fuel, with theoption of the market introduction of 3 percent hydrotreatedvegetable oils as a method of co-refining in the mineral oilrefinery. A basic agreement on this consensus was confirmedduring the association discussion held at the invitation of theBMELV on 05/21/2010. From the point of view of the UFOP,this “Biofuel Roadmap” serves as a certain example for thecontinued development of the biofuel strategy in the dieselmarket on the European level; after all, B7 is targeted at exis-ting vehicles on the market, already equipped with first gene-ration diesel particle filters and regeneration systems, thusrepresenting a cur-rently justifiable compromise from thepoint of view of engine technology. The ADAC has announcedits intention to test passenger vehicle fleets in daily trafficwith respect to a possible dilution of engine oil.

Apparently, particularly in foreign European nations, investorshave failed to note the quality developments which diesel fuelhas undergone in the past years as a result of the engine techno-logy requirements. On the other hand, the biodiesel industrymust ask itself which qualitative improvements are necessary topermit additive shares of 10 percent or higher to be possible. TheUFOP expert commission, “Biofuel and Renewable Raw Materials”addresses this topic. Within the context of the commission mee-ting during the report year, the UFOP presented, among otherthings, an intended project promoted at the University ofPotsdam, whose intention it is to employ a catalytic process toshorten the methyl ester chain length in order to optimize theboiling point and, ultimately, the entire combustion behavior,including the reduction of engine oil dilution. Measured againstits financial abilities, the UFOP is very committed to promotingresearch into the employment of biodiesel and vegetable oil fuelsand, for some projects, to provide financial support with theassistance of the Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V.However, measured against the public funds provided forresearch in the area of so-called “second generation biofuels”,funding of intended projects directed to promoting biodiesel isrelatively modest. From the point of view of the UFOP, this situa-tion is incomprehensible since, to date, it has already been

Installed capacity**

Belgium 277Bulgaria 11

231Germany 2,819Estonia 0Finland* 85France 1,815GreeceGreat BritainIreland*ItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaThe NetherlandsAustriaPolandPortugalRumaniaSlovakiaSlovenia

10719224595

Biodiesel production***

41625233

2,53924220

1,959771371773744 30

6601

101213275268651469

9801

323310332250291019

* Includes hydro-diesel production ** Calculation based on 330 production days per facility and year, based on respective dates of 1 July, 2009, and 1 July, 2010*** Margin of error: +/- 5 percent

Table 3: EU Biodiesel Production and Capacities (information given inmillions of tons, estimated values)

Total 9,046

705435352

5,200135340

2,50571560980

1,910

670425527

4,933135340

2,50566260976

2,375156 136

14708

1,036707580468307247100

14705

1,328560710468307156105

Spain 207859 3,6564,100Czech Republic 104164 325427Hungary 105133 186158Cyprus 99 2020

determined that by 2020 the energy-based share of renewableenergy in the transport sector must be at least 10 percent, andthat this objective can only be achieved by first generation bio-fuels and bioethanol. This fact, repeatedly stated by the UFOP isconfirmed by the current study by the German Biomass ResearchCenter, in which the essential biofuel components and their anti-cipated availability are determined and compared with at therequest of the WWF. The UFOP therefore promotes a factually-based balance in its political maneuverings and with respect toresearch funding, particularly since these R&D results contributedirectly to ensure sales of locally-grown raw materials. However,the German and European biodiesel industry must also promoteits own contribution. Measured against the foreseeable challen-ges, the UFOP criticizes the inadequate level of preparedness atthe EU level to advance the establishment of a research networksupported by the biodiesel industry. In this regard, the UFOPgreets the activities carried out by the ArbeitsgemeinschaftQualitätsmanagement e. V. whose efforts include, for example, aninternational meeting of biodiesel experts, the organization ofroundtable tests, workshops, etc., in an attempt to spur on theestablishment of such a network.

At both the national and European levels, the biodiesel industrymust confront an increasingly international meshing in thetrade of raw materials and biodiesel. The European biodieselindustry confronts this competition. However, it is quite right incriticizing third countries which employ subsidies to promotethe export levels of biodiesel within the European Union. Oneexample is the export tax policy of the Argentinean government.The export tax is reduced to the same extent that the processingrequired for the final product increases. Where biodiesel is pro-duced from soybeans, the beans themselves are taxed relativelyheavily, while the tax on the exported biodiesel is relatively low.As a result of this policy, exports of Argentinean biodiesel to theEU rose from 5,000 tons in mid-2008 to nearly 100,000 tons byJuly, 2009. Due to the current inability to accurately determineimports, more precise statistics are unavailable. Presumably, theactual import volume is far higher, since biodiesel is importedunder a variety of customs tariff numbers, and can therefore notbe directly assigned to fuel purposes.

The United States carried out yet another form of state supportwhen it came to export policies. This involved granting companiesa tax break of 300 dollars per ton for biodiesel with diesel fuelblends, provided that at least 1 percent of the biodiesel was blen-ded into the fuel (“blender credit”). These so-called “B99” biodie-sel exports were finally ended as a result of the intervention ofthe EU commission (refer to the UFOP Report, 2008/2009. Pg.26), however, the responsible customs authorities confiscatedanother 10,000 tons of biodiesel which had been exported toItaly under this subvention. The UFOP therefore demands that theEU commission inspects import volumes and possible circumven-tion stocks more stringently, whereby the required customs tariffnumber assigned to the import amount should be noted if thebiodiesel in question is being imported for use as fuel.

2009 2008 2010 2009

Denmark/Sweden

7,755 21,904 20,909

2009/2010 Report

|98|

National Mandates Support the European BiodieselMarketWithin the context of the European Guideline to Promote Biofuels(2003/30/EG) which went into effect in 2003, the member nati-ons agreed to a nonbinding goal of 5.75 percent share of biofuelon the market by 2010. As a result of the debate related to clima-te protection and resources, this guideline was replaced by theguideline, Promoting the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources(2009/28/EG). This guideline with the mandatory goal that everymember nation contributes at least a 10 calorie percent share ofrenewable energy in the transport sector by 2020, created thenecessary pressure on the member nations to introduce additivequotas. In many of the member states, this additive quota isbased on the 5.75 percent previously nonbinding objective in thefirst guideline mentioned above. However, only Germany, with anadditive rate of 6.75 percent has set a palpably higher goal (referto Graph 3).

In the opinion of the UFOP and with the exception of Germanyand France, an adaptation of the additive quotas in 2011 is possi-ble and, within the context of utilizing Europe’s biodiesel capaci-ties is urgently required. In 2011, the modified European DieselFuel Standard – EN 590 – will take effect. This will permit theinclusive addition of 7 percent by volume of biodiesel in dieselfuel. Additionally, a uniform additive level also makes sense, as

diesel fuel is sold across all borders throughout the Euro-peanUnion. Not only biodiesel is traded across all borders within theEuropean Union, but, all the associated raw materials are marke-ted as well. And finally, not only does the result of the additivequotas on the European level as well as in third nations such asArgentina, the US and Malaysia result in increasing competition,producing a steady profit pressure since the relatively large num-ber of biodiesel manufacturers (estimated at 245 in the EU) areconfronted by a comparatively small number of consumers in themineral oil industry. In contrast to bioethanol, there is no exter-nal protection for biodiesel imports to the EU. The same alsoapplies to raw material dealers. Competitive pressure results in acorresponding optimization with regard to the raw materialsemployed for the production of biodiesel. Based on the require-ments made on winter quality, standardized in the individualnational fuel standards for the related climate zone, there is verylittle trading option among biodiesel fuels. Thus, palm oil methylester can only be added to a very small share of summer diesel.Thus, in summer, a so-called “FAME-0” quality (this means theCFPP value for the diesel fuel quality in the summer at 0 degreesCelsius) and, in winter, winter quality diesel is sold. A study car-ried out by Greenpeace at 80 public service stations noted signi-ficant differences in the raw material composition of winter andsummer biodiesel, used as an additive to diesel fuel. Based on theresults of the study carried out for Greenpeace, the share of rape-

seed oil methyl ester was 92.1 percent in winter diesel, that ofsoy methyl ester was 5.1 percent, and palm oil methyl ester madeup only 0.2 percent. The share of old fats which make up the bio-diesel was 2.6 percent. In contrast to this, the following averageraw material levels were found in summer diesel (2009): rapeseedoil methyl ester, 63 percent; soy methyl ester, 17 percent; palmoil methyl ester, 11 percent, and; the share of biodiesel manu-factured from old fats was 9 percent. The raw material compositi-on from other member states is not known. It can, however, beassumed that, in those member states such as Spain with a highbiodiesel manufacturing capacity (4.1 million tons) and a lowlevel of raw material supply (sunflower oil is too expensive), theshare of imported oils employed for biodiesel manufacture wouldbe relatively high. With 23.6 million tons of diesel fuel consump-tion (2009), Spain is the fourth largest diesel market in theEuropean Union. At a national quota of 5.83 percent by volume,this corresponds to a mere 1.2 million tons to meet its quota obli-gation. The largest volume share would need to be exported. YetSpain’s biodiesel industry is characterized by a significant underutilization. The UFOP therefore reinforces the urgent need for aEuropean-wide quality assurance policy for the manufacture andthe employment of biodiesel in order to ensure winter quality inthe corresponding member nations or climatic regions within theEuropean Union.

However, the objective of the Greenpeace study was not todetermine the diesel quality at public service stations, but in-stead to determine the quality of the employed raw materials.In particular, the question was one the quantities of palm andsoybean oil in order to add the findings to the public debateconcerning the origins of raw materials. This was required sincewith the introduction of the Renewable Energy Guideline(2009/28/EG), the European Parliament had forced through ajoint decision-making process, which made certain sustainabili-ty criteria and evidence prerequisites for receiving tax credits orfor addition to the obligatory quotas and for credits towards theavailability of renewable power. The deadline for national imple-mentation ends on 12/05/2010. The member nations are underpressure to act or, at least, to reach a decision regarding sup-port for the development of privately operated certificationoffices, or to support their development through legal policies,or to establish state-controlled certification under federal man-dates.

Germany Forges Ahead with the Implementation ofthe Biomass Sustainability RegulationOnce the EU guideline to Promote the Energy from RenewableResources took affect in June, 2009, (Renewable EnergyGuideline – 2009/28/EG), an intense discussion with respectto the designated deadlines set forth by the FederalGovernment for the transformation of the two drafts for sus-tainability legislation for “biofuels” and for “renewablepower”. Under intense public pressure from the tank, theplate and palm oil industry (in Germany, approx. 2,000 dis-trict heating facilities with an annual requirement for

approx. 500,000 tons of palm oil are currently operating),the Environmental Commission of the German FederalGovernment chose 01/01/2010 as the date on which bothregulations would come into force, with a transition periodup to 06/30/2010, simultaneously forcing both the FederalGovernment and the biofuel branch to act, in view of theimpending deadlines. In August and November, 2009, thebiomass sustainability regulations came into force and, inthe meantime, served the EU commission as a temporaryprerequisite for a notification of their implementation at thenational level. As the only EU member nation, Germany isenacting two regulations, as a result of the as timely as pos-sible introduction mandated by the Sustainable Energy Law(EEG) for sustainability criteria as a prerequisite for obtaining therenewable resources bonus for district heating facilities. Whilethe UFOP was successful in its cooperation with biofuelindustry associations in demanding the implementation ofthis delay period (refer also to the UFOP Annual Report,2008/2009, pg. 34), it nonetheless turned out that, evenwith this deadline delay, the amount of time gained was,from a practical standpoint, inadequate in order to presentthe documentation and evidence required under the regula-tions, starting from the raw material producers and reachingthrough to the oil mills and manufacturers. In addition, itwas not until January, 2010, that the BLE gave preliminaryrecognition to the first International Carbon CertificationSystem (ISCC).

By putting forth the following arguments, the UFOP put theFederal Government and the Federal Parliament under pressu-re to again delay the date of legal effectiveness until12/05/2012, as mandated by the EU guideline:

1. More than 2,000 individual presenters must be certified inthe period between January and June, 2010. The administra-tion regulations contain no rules if a company applies forcertification, but it cannot be granted due to the limitednumber of certification offices.

2. Without examination, the BLE’s EDP system for preparing evi-dence of sustainability passes through every stage back to thestart, including the major customs offices. Sensitive errorscould occur as a result of faults.

3. The administration regulations foresee no transition rules forthe biomass volumes already produced prior to the deadlinedate of 06/30/2010, nor does it take existing contracts whichhave already been concluded into account.

4. There is currently only a single certification system which hasbeen temporarily approved by the BLE. At the time, no othercertification systems were in the EU approval phase.

5. Measured against the number of facilities to be certified,there are far too few certification offices with a totally

Graph 3: European Biofuel Additive Quotas, 2010

2009/2010 Report

|1110|

inadequate number of employees.

6. Implementation requires a significant amount of preliminaryinformation. Particularly affected is the area of agriculture.Approx. 300,000 producer operations must be informed of therequirement to submit an energy declaration which, if possi-ble, should be provided to the agriculture authority as theinitial interface prior to the 2010 harvest.

7.Implementation of the EU guideline is at best slow in othermember nations (e.g., Great Britain), or is not proceeding atall (e.g., Poland). In the sense of ensuring free trade of goodsthroughout the EU, the 2010 harvest must be excluded fromthe sustainability certification. The question of how and ifexisting contracts can be met if proof of certification is asubsequent requirement, remains open. Free trade, particular-ly in rapeseed, is being hindered by the EU.

8. The UFOP assumes that, against this background, the membernations will achieve a grace period for the 2010 harvest. Theimplementation of the EU guideline must not only be contex-tually 1:1 at a national level, but the various deadlines mustalso be harmonized.

9. The EU commission has often failed to present its explanati-ons of the guideline. In particular this affects the definitionof green fields which are “worthy of protection”, as well as thelack of so-called “standard values” for calculating the green-house gas balance, for example, for rye when employed forbioethanol production.

In Germany, more than 1 million hectares of rapeseed are usedto generate biofuel. Rapeseed producers thus have much to loseif nearly all producing operations fail to present their self-decla-rations and if practically all producers are not certified by theend of 2010. The focus of the UFOP activities during the springof 2010 dealt with the question of the administrative implemen-tation of the evidentiary and requirement criteria, as well aswith the approval of certification systems and monitoring of-fices in accordance with the cited regulations. The BLE limitedits focus to the approval of certification systems and monitoringoffices. For this, it established an expert committee to whichthe UFOP also belongs. Thus, the economy itself was challengedto develop a certification system and to qualify certificationoffices for the implementation.

Overview of the most important aspects of the BiomassSustainability Regulations (BiomNach-VO) as they affect the agri-cultural industry:

1. Evidence of sustaining areas worthy of protection with a highlevel of natural protection, with large supplies of carbon andpeat bogs – cutoff date 01/01/2008;

2. Evidence of sustained good surface management practices

and cross-compliance (CC) in the EU. Implementation afterapproval of documentation and controls as part of the EUassistance program to avoid dual expenditure;

3. Greenhouse gas balances:employment of standard values to minimize administrativeexpenses;

4. Introduction of a mass balance system.

The underlying principle behind the biomass sustainability con-cept lies in the employment of a mass balance system whichincludes the raw material quantities; that is, the harvest amount– e.g., rapeseed – is weighed in the conventional manner and isnormally entered in the EDP system. What does the farmer needto do? Before delivering the harvest to the trader, the operatorsubmits a self-declaration that his or her operation is in compli-ance with the cross-compliance requirements (CC), or that theharvest was not grown on areas worthy of protection. The01/01/2008 cutoff date practically ensures that separate evi-dence of the raw material source should only be required for afew operations. The agricultural operation is only indirectly partof the certification system. The system actually begins with theagricultural trader (first interface), passes on to the processing(oil mill), and ends with the biodiesel manufacturer (final inter-face). It is the first recipient who is certified with respect to theself-documentation, including the producers’ self-declarations.In accordance with BiomNach-VO, 3 percent of the agriculturaloperations must be examined with respect to their self-declara-tions, with this inspection being limited to an “on-site”inspection to determine whether the assistance certification forthe operating bonus or the application for the subsequent yearare available. In doing this, the operation provides evidencethat it is in compliance with CC. The administrative challengeconsists in the first recipients reaching an agreement to avoiddouble inspection, despite the fact, that at 3 percent, the ran-dom sample size is relatively small. Working with its members,the UFOP has been successful in lobbying for an implementationof the biomass sustainability regulations that are as adminis-tratively lean as possible. In doing this, the UFOP pursued itsbasic position that the operator’s total planted area be includedin the evidence. On the one hand, this allows the entire harvestto be recorded, for example, silo corn intended for biogas pro-duction in the future, and, on the other, because raw-material-related evidence represents a significantly greater bureaucraticeffort. As an alternative, the farmer may still submit a raw-material-based self-declaration (for example, for only the areaplanted in rapeseed). This option was the product of an agree-ment between the German Agricultural Association and theState Farmers Associations.

Raw material quantities such as, for example, rapeseed, are cor-respondingly recorded by the first recipient and then marketedto the oil mill. In turn, the mill provides the rapeseed oilvolume to the biodiesel manufacturer. The chain of evidence is

therefore closed. This represents the prerequisite for theissuance of so-called “sustainability certificates” which formthe foundation for the taxes filed for a corresponding amount ofbiodiesel fuel with a head customs office, or for the addition tothe quota obligation at the biofuel quota office. Only the finalinterface, the biodiesel manufacturer, is permitted to issuesustainability certificates. The documentation requirements aredirected at the administrative system which is already opera-tional within the operations.

The short-term information requirement among the interfaceswas therefore significant. Therefore, in January, 2010, the UFOPand the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualitätsmanagement Biodiesel e. V.(AGQM) issued invitations to two expert seminars and, in April,2010, to an international seminar, related to the topic of theimplementation of the biomass sustainability regulations.

REDcert – The Certification System Supported by theAssociationsIn January, 2010, the affected economic associations agreed tocreate a certification system which would orient itself to therequirements stated previously and would thus comply with thedemands of the biomass sustainability regulations. At the sametime, system parameters which are already active within theagriculture industry for certification are also employed to gene-rate synergistic effects. The objective was to create a common,efficient and lean cost certification system which could also be

accepted by other member nations and, beyond this, whichwould gain the necessary degree of acceptance at the raw mate-rials producer and agricultural trader stages. With the creationof REDcert, the affected economic groups commit to the respon-sibility of ensuring the sustainability of biofuels across all sta-ges. The REDcert certification system was established on02/26/2010. Aside from leading associations and organizationsinvolved in the areas of German agriculture and the biofuelindustry, the REDcert GmbH also includes the mineral oil asso-ciation (refer to Graph 4).

The certification system’s name is derived from the Englishdesignation for renewable energy directive certification. TheGmbH is headquartered in Bonn where it has undertaken itsactivities and was fully recognized by the BLE on 07/20/2010.Due to the limited acceptance or approval for European bio-mass, REDcert also offers a high level of sustainability withrespect to social standards and thanks to the applicable socialand work legislation within the EU nations, particularly in viewof the fact that, within the EU, the requirements of the Inter-national Labor Organization (ILO) with respect to third-countrynationals are significantly exceeded. Every expansion of EU sus-tainability standards is automatically taken into account andapplied by REDcert.

For more detailed information, including in English, please visitwww.redcert.org.

Graph 4: REDcert – The Certification System Supported by the Associations

2009/2010 Report

|1312|

Graph 6: Climate Protection Quotas for Biofuels as of 2015 (all entries in percent)

Graph 5: Standard GHG Emissions for BiofuelsThe BLE also gave its final approval to the InternationalSustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC), the certificationsystem which had been given financial support by the BMELVduring its development phase. This certification system(www.iscc-system.org) is not merely directed at biomass verifi-cation in Germany or throughout the EU, but is pointed in par-ticular at third-countries which are simultaneously leading agri-cultural producers and help control trade. Among others, theseinclude Brazil, Argentina and Malaysia or Indonesia. On princi-ple, the UFOP welcomes this initiative and the financial support,as Germany will bear a quality standard at an international levelunder this system, which sets out the criteria to be examinedand the evidence and documentation to be provided with whichthe certification systems being developed by policy makers andbiofuel operators in these countries must also comply. In theopinion of the UFOP, any “avoidance”, for example of the ILOrequirement, despite the nation in question having signed theagreement, must be prevented. The UFOP actively participatedin the corresponding working groups during the development ofthe ISCC system.

At the same time, all certifications must face the challenge ofpublic acceptance. As anticipated, environmental associationshave already initiated a critical discussion with respect to thequality of the certification. The system operators must face thisdiscussion and, within the context of their public relations workand transparency policies, must respond factually to it. UFOP issearching for a dialog in this respect by, for example, makingthe topic of sustainable biomass production and certificationsystems a central topic during the upcoming BBE/UFOP-BiofuelConference, “Fuels of the Future, 2011”, during the Inter-national Green Week in Berlin.

The Challenge of CO2 Reduction!Aside from the previously mentioned sustainability challenges,the renewable energy guideline (EE-RL) also regulates the chal-lenges associated with the greenhouse gas reduction, evidencefor which must be provided for the associated biofuel, for exam-ple, biodiesel, on the basis of the employed raw materials (rape-seed, soybean or palm oil). For simplification, the guideline isbroken down into CO2 per mega joule calculations for the reduc-tion in biomass, raw materials processing (oil mills) and the ship-ping of biofuel, as well as the transport chain. The sum is set inrelation to the CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. Initially, the guidelinemandates a greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) of at least 35 per-cent as the prerequisite for market access and, beginning in 2017,

a minimum reduction of 50 percent. Finally, beginning in 2018,this figure rises to 60 percent for new facilities. Based on thestandard figures for greenhouse gas reduction quoted in the EE-RL, rapeseed oil exhibits a reduction of 38 percent. The prescribedGHG reduction for the individual raw materials or the biofuel pro-duced from them must, however, be viewed critically. Graph 5illustrates that the GHG reduction of at least 50 percent pre-scribed for 2017 cannot be produced by biodiesel produced fromrapeseed. Thus, rapeseed could not be employed in the fuel mar-ket, nor in district heating facilities as a heating oil replacementunless an increase in the required level of greenhouse gas reduc-tion within the production chain can be adequately raised by thatdate. After all, nearly 1 million hectares of rapeseed are used tocreate energy in Germany. However, the biodiesel quota regula-tion calls for a conversion to a climate protection obligation asearly as 2015 (refer to Graph 6). The described conversion to theGHG reduction obligations means that in its preliminary contracts,the mineral oil industry will be requiring evidence of GHG reduc-tion by mid-2014. It follows that the pricing competition for thebiofuel manufacturers will then no longer essentially be based onthe costs for raw materials, processing and shipping, but also onthe GHG efficiency of the biodiesel being offered. This then pre-supposes associated in-house calculations or operational optimi-zation measures on the part of biodiesel manufacturers. It cantherefore be anticipated that the preliminary stage – the oil mill– will need to provide GHG balances for individual facilities. It hasbeen calculated that, for the greenhouse gas standard values quo-ted in the EU guideline (refer to Graph 5), existing facilities wouldlevy a surcharge of 40 percent. With this “correction”, the EUcommission intends to motivate facility operators to determinefacility-specific data with respect to their energy requirement andthus for greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond this, there is also theoption of operating a district heating facility with biomass andutilizing the produced process steam to generate excess powerand also add this value to the GHG reducing total. The employ-ment of bioethanol generated from biogas/biomass has,according to a study of the German Biomass Research Center(Deutsches BiomasseForschungsZentrums (DBFZ)) carried outunder the aegis of the UFOP, only a limited savings effect sincemethanol is extracted from natural gas. Natural gas already pos-sesses significant greenhouse gas advantages when compared topetroleum.

Rapeseed Cultivation – Challenge to Reducing GHGIn view of this foreseeable change in the competitive conditi-ons, the UFOP also charged the Deutsches BiomasseForschungs-Zentrum (DBFZ) with examining various approaches to improvethe greenhouse gas situation with biodiesel made of rapeseed,in accordance with the requirements listed in Attachment V ofthe EU-RL (refer to UFOP Annual Report, 2009/2010, chapter 4,“UFOP Advisory Committee & Expert Advisory Committee”). Thefocus of these examinations was the question of evaluatingevery conceivable optimization option.

2009/2010 Report

|1514|

Graphs 7 and 8 illustrate the most effective approaches or themost important production factors for optimizing the GHGbalance. The results of the study confirm that, there exist signi-ficant differences between the various N fertilizer types when itcomes to the effort involved in cultivation. One alternative isthe employment – to the extent possible and available – oforganic fertilizers such as liquid manure, which simultaneouslyrepresents a multi-nutrient fertilizer. A challenge lies in redu-cing the laughing gas (N2O) emissions created by nitrogen fer-tilizers. The calculation is based on an assumed 1 percent N20release per amount of nitrogen fertilizer employed (in accor-dance with the IPCC). For every kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer,this represents 0.0157 kilograms of N20 or 4.65 kilograms of CO2equivalent. An emission factor of 296 is applied to N20.Optimizing the fertilizer strategy does, however, have limits,particularly when it comes to rapeseed yield expectations.

Against this background, the UFOP is currently initiating andextensive, multi-year cooperative project with scientific institu-tions and state agencies to not only show the GHG reserves yiel-ded by rapeseed cultivation, but to also inform practical appli-

cations as quickly as possible of these findings. It follows thattime is of the essence with regard to the introduction of theGHG quota in 2015. The Federal Government’s national BiomassAction Plan for Germany and, particularly, the increased focus ofresearch strategies to optimize production techniques must beable to be measured against this challenge if rapeseed as anenergy source for subsequent systems is to have any future hopeof maintaining its present level of cultivation.

Situation for Soybean DieselA particular problem with regard to attaining the required GHGreduction (refer to Graph 5, page 13), exists for soybean oiland palm oil. Biodiesel manufactured from these raw materialsdoes not comply with the required GHG minimum level of 35percent. Market access within the European Union would the-refore be practically closed to these raw materials or theirassociated biodiesel products if, as of 04/01/2013, the excep-tion rule for GHG evidence which took effect on 01/23/2008(protection for older facilities) were to expire. It is apparentthat the methodology employed to calculate greenhousegas balances would quickly assume a trade policy position.

is a strong necessity to evaluate the source data. If, however,the EU Commission should accept this calculation, the “win-ner” of the GHG balance would already have been determined.Since, the study reaches the conclusion that GHG reduction forsoybean diesel (source: USA) is 52 percent. Malaysia has alsorecognized this problem and is attempting, particularly in thearea of palm oil production, to optimize the GHG emission. TheMalaysian government has already announced an investmentprogram with the objective of expanding the technologyemployed in Malaysian oil mills by utilizing the byproducts forbiogas generation so that the methane currently released bythe byproducts during the palm oil reclamation would nolonger load the GHG balance of biodiesel production or beavailable for district heating facilities.

Arguments with Brazil, Argentina and the US can be anticipa-ted. Against this background, the United States SoybeanBoard has already ordered a study to be prepared for presenta-tion to the EU commission. The UFOP has charged the DBFZwith the certification of the study. The certification’s title is“Brief Expert Assessment to Evaluate the Life Cycle Impact onSoybean Production and Soy Industrial Products – Examinationfor Conformity with EU RED”. The conclusion of the certificati-on is that, while the legal methodology in accordance withEE-RL has been applied in a 1:1 ratio, several of the primarydata must still be questioned as they are to an extent divorcedfrom reality (for example, the low amount of methanol employ-ed for biodiesel manufacturing). The study shows clearly that,aside from the conformity examination of the related metho-dology employed to calculate greenhouse gas emissions, there

Graph 7: Parameter Variation – Cultivation

Graph 8: Parameter Variation – Cultivation

2009/2010 Report

|1716|

Biodiesel in RacingIn Germany, adding biodiesel to conventional diesel fuel hasbecome a common practice. It has become standard for everydiesel driver to fill up his or her personal or commercial vehi-cle with B7 fuel. For customers at service stations, there isno indication which biodiesel raw material they are using.And is for this reason that the object of UFOP public relati-ons work is to communicate that rapeseed or rapeseed oil isthe preferable raw material for biodiesel production. As acentral PR project, for the past year, the association hasbeen employing B30 fuel as part of the race car project ofsinger and driver SMUDO. While the term “Flower Power” bio-diesel was common in the past, the UFOP is promoting theslogan: “Biodiesel – Rapeseed Power” with its use of the30 percent biodiesel mixture.

For this project, a spectacular Renault Mégane Trophy poweredby a 2.0 liter dCi engine is being employed. Aside from theUFOP, the biodiesel commitment is also supported by theArbeitsgemeinschaft Qualitätsmanagement Biodiesel e. V.(AGQM), which is responsible for ensuring that only quality as-sured biodiesel flows into the race car’s tank. The project has aparticularly high potential with regard to broad media coverage,as numerous television and countless newspaper articles haveshown. One highpoint occurred in mid-July, 2010, when the cartook part in “Sebastian Vettel’s Home Run”, with Formula 1 star

Sebastian Vettel. With Smudo piloting the biodiesel Méganealongside German Touring Car Champion Mattias Ekström andSebastian Vettel in his Red Bull racer through the streets ofVettel’s home town of Heppenheim.

BBBE/UFOP Expert Congress, “Fuels of the Future”The international biofuel branch gathers annually in Berlin atthe BBE/UFOP expert congress, “Fuels of the Future”, to meetwith representatives from politics and the economy and discussstrategies for the continuous development of various biofuelmarkets. The 7th overall congress was held between 11/30 and12/01/2009 at the ICC in Berlin. Despite the difficult marketenvironment, 450 representatives from 30 nations took part.This allowed the presenter once again to make the claim thatthe congress represents the guiding meeting for the future ori-entation of biofuel policies in Germany and throughout Europe.

Public Relations International Green Week, 2010Every January, the primary subject of discussion in Berlin isagriculture, when the International Green Week opens its por-tals. Over the past years, nature.tec – a specialized display ofrenewable raw materials – has grown into a fixed component ofthe traditional fair. In 2010, the specialist’s show concept wassignificantly expanded. From 01/15 to 01/24/2010, nature.tecdisplayed information and innovations covering every aspect ofrenewable raw materials on an area of 6,000 square meters inHall 4.2. Under the common motto: “Sustainably Mobile withBiofuels”, the UFOP shared a joint, 180 square meter area withthe Federal Association of German Bioethanol Industry (Bundes-verband der Deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e. V., BDBe), theGerman Biofuel Industry (Deutsche Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V., VDB),the Federal Association of Decentralized Oil Mills (Bundes-verband Dezentraler Ölmühlen e.V., BDOel) and the Associationof Oilseed Processing Industries in Germany (Verband der ölsaa-ten-verarbeitenden Industrie in Deutschland e. V., OVID). Thejoint presentation of the relevant German associations wasintended particularly towards directing political attention.Numerous representatives from state and federal parliamentsobtained information regarding vegetable oil, biodiesel, as wellas bioethanol. The topic of sustainable production of raw mate-rials for biofuel production was discussed with particular inten-sity within this context.

BioConcept car at Sebastian Vettel’s home run in Heppenheim

Sebastian Vettel and SMUDO in Heppenheim

BioConcept Car at the ICC being shown as part of the BBE/UFOP Congress

“Fuels of the Future”

Dr. Klaus Kliem at the joint biofuels trade show stand during a politicaltour

Biofuel slot car track at the joint trade show stand

Joint biofuels trade show stand in the nature.tec hall at the IGW, 2010

Approval BrochureIn the spring of 2010, the UFOP, working hand-in-hand with theGerman Biofuels Industry Association (Verband der DeutschenBiokraftstoffindustrie e. V., VDB) and the Biodiesel QualityManagement Working Committee (ArbeitsgemeinschaftQualitätsmanagement Biodiesel e. V., AGQM), sent a question-naire to the manufacturers of commercial vehicles. The result isthe release of a public brochure containing the vehicle manu-facturers’ binding resolution to employ biodiesel. Nearly 10,000copies of the brochure were distributed to potential biodieselcustomers in the commercial vehicle market by members of theAGQM as well as the national bioenergy consulting office. All theinformation is also available on the internet pages of the parti-cipating associations. There, the reader can also find importantsupplementary information such as the actual approval terms ofthe individual vehicle manufacturer for practical handling whenbiodiesel is used in the vehicles.

2009/2010 Report

|19

03/26/2010Drop in Domestic Biodiesel Consumption During 2009Based on official data obtained from the Federal Office forthe Economy and Export Controls (Bundesamt für Wirtschaftund Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA), the Union for the Promotion ofOils and Protein Plants (Union zur Förderung von Oel- undProteinpflanzen e. V., UFOP) has evaluated the domestic useof biofuels for the period between 2007 and 2009.

02/26/2010“REDcert GmbH” Founded – Associations Develop Certifi-cation SystemLeading associations and organizations in the German agricultu-re and biofuel industries have today founded the REDcert certi-fication system.

02/10/2010Requirements for Biomass Sustainability Ordinances Imple-mentedIn reaction to the recently implemented requirements of thebiomass sustainability ordinance, the German agricultural indus-try will develop its own certification system.

01/20/2010UFOP Board Requests Ongoing Development of the Bio-diesel StrategyOn the occasion of its first IGW meeting in 2010, members ofthe UFOP board discussed the need for a sustainability-ori-ented strategy for the sale of biodiesel and vegetable oil fuel.

12/08/2009No-Harm List for Oxidation Stabilizers for BiodieselExpanded. Second Test Period Successfully ConcludedThe employment of oxidation stabilizers for biodiesel compo-nents in B7 fuel is urgently recommended in the DIN 51628requirements standard.

11/30/2009Agriculture and Biodiesel Manufacturers Faced with MajorChallenges through the Obligation to Reduce GreenhouseGasesIn most cases, the ob-jective of lowering green-house gases through theemployment of biofuelsby, initially, 35 percentat least and, as of2017, by 50 percent,cannot be met by thestandard values listed in the EE guideline (2009/28/EG).What is required is an individual optimization of the GHGemissions based on raw materials, and stretching across theentire conversion chain. Cultivation is also affected if, byno later than 2017, a maximum of 41.9 g CO2eq/MJ and, asof 2018, a maximum of 33.5 g CO2eq/MJ for new facilitiesmay not be exceeded.

11/30/2009Reanimating the Biofuel Market – But do it Right! BiofuelBranch Unveils a Catalog of Measures in BerlinAfter the decline in market share for biogenetic fuels in the traf-fic sector from 7.1 percent in 2007 to 5.9 percent in 2008, thenew Federal Government led by the CDU, CSU and FDP has, in itscoalition agreement, promised to reanimate the biofuel market.The draft of the growth acceleration legislation, the governmenthas therefore determined to fix the current tax rate on pure bio-diesel and vegetable oil fuel for the next three years, rather thanincreasing the energy tax.

10/24/2009Coalition Corrects Biodiesel TaxThe governing coalition of the CDU, CSU and FDP has agreed toreanimate the biodiesel market. To do this, an urgently neededcorrection which will offer new perspectives to the German bio-diesel economy will occur. The long-term employment of sustai-nably grown raw materials, particularly do-mestic rapeseed oil,must now guarantee acceptance and market success.

09/18/2009Biofuel Report Confirms Existential Threat to Biodieseland Vegetable Oil Fuel ManufacturersThe Federal Government’s latest biofuel report underlines theurgent need for action for an appropriate correction of andadjustment to the tax credits for the employment of biodie-sel as a pure fuel and for vegetable oil fuels. This is the con-clusion reached by the Union for the Promotion of Oils andProtein Plants (Union zur Förderung von Oel- undProteinpflanzen e. V., UFOP) in its initial assessment. TheUFOP is therefore already appealing to politicians to pass thereport to the appropriate committees in the GermanParliament during the next legislative session.

07/10/2009Passenger Vehicles can be Safely Operated with B10 – Ifan Appropriate Regeneration Strategy is EmployedUnder certain conditions, modern passenger cars can be ope-rated with B10, with a biodiesel additive of 10 percent byvolume. Previous manufacturers’ approvals have only permit-ted operation with B7 (7 percent addition). This is the resultof fleet tests carried out by the German Biofuels IndustryAssociation (Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustriee. V., VDB), with the support of the Union for the Promotionof Oils and Protein Plants (Union zur Förderung von Oel- undProteinpflanzen e. V., UFOP).

07/08/2009UFOP Welcomes the Implementation of EU Fines againstUS BiodieselThe UFOP welcomes the decision reached by the EU FinanceMinister to levy anti-dumping fines on the importation of bio-diesel from the United States as of 12 July. The mandatory sur-charge ranges between 230 and 409 EURO per ton, dependingon the individual US company in question.

18|

Ongoing Press WorkOnce again, during the time period covered by this report, tradi-tional press work represented a core element of UFOP PR work.More than 40 press releases dealing with relevant partial aspectsof biodiesel or biofuel were issued. Among these, the formulati-on of position papers and demands in connection with the bio-diesel legislation, together with the subject of sustainabilityform the most important aspects of press work.

Overview of the Most Significant Press Releases Related tothe Subject of Biodiesel & Co.(period: July, 2009, through August, 2010)

08/03/2010US Study on the Greenhouse Gas Balance for SoybeanBiodiesel Creates ControversyThe German Biomass Research Center (Deutsches Biomasse-ForschungsZentrum (DBFZ)) has evaluated a current US study onthe greenhouse gas balance (GHG balance) of soybean biodiesel.

06/23/2010Small Biomethanol Contribution to Optimizing the CO2Balance of BiodieselDepending on the provision method and the employed rawmaterials, the substitution of methanol extracted from natu-ral gas by biomethanol saves only between 2 percent and3 percent of the overall emissions during biodiesel production.

06/10/2010Long-term Study Regarding the Practical Employment ofAntioxidants in Rapeseed Oil FuelA long-term study lasting from April, 2007, through the end of2009 at the chair for piston engines and combustion engines ofthe University of Rostock examined the everyday employment ofantioxidants in rapeseed oil fuel.

06/08/2010European Additive Quotas for Biofuels, 2010To date, the legally mandated additive quotas for biofuels have ex-hibited wide-ranging differences among various European nations.

05/21/2010Biodiesel: Current Approval List for Commercial VehiclesPresentedA current list of all commercial vehicle manufacturers showingall the various vehicles which have been approved for operationwith pure biodiesel (B100) or for use with an additive share of30 percent (B30).

05/12/2010Project Report Released on the Approval for DEUTZ CommonRail Engines in Commercial Vehicles to Operate with Euro IVBiodieselThe granting of approvals is a prerequisite for future marketingof biodiesel as a clean fuel as well as an additive component fordiesel fuel.

05/04/2010AGQM and FAM Jointly Carry Out Round Robin Tests onBiodiesel and Rapeseed Oil FuelRound robin tests to examine the test procedures and the properworking methods of professional laboratory employees carriedout by the Expert Committee for Mineral Oil and Fuel Standardi-zation (Fachausschuss Mineralöl- und Brennstoffnormung (FAM))of the DIN have a long history in the area of fuels and lubri-cants.

04/23/2010International UFOP/AGQM Workshop: Sustainability ofBiofuelsGermany moves forward at the EU level which, in accordancewith 2009/28/EC, requires sustainable biomass production on anational level for the employment of liquid biomass as a fueladditive or for power generation.

04/01/2010Biofuel Associations Present Recommendations to UpdateGerman Biofuel RegulationGerman biofuel associations have come out in favor oftightening the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissi-ons caused by traffic, and to combine it with the obligatoryutilization quotient into a single, “combined quota”.

2009/2010 Report

|2120|

being addressed by a study carried out by AGQM and theAssociation of the Oil Cultivation Processing Industry inGermany (OVID), and financed by the American SoybeanAssociation – International Marketing. The objective of thisstudy was to examine the typical situation of the oil mill pro-cessing chain and to identify technical measures whichwould result in a significant reduction of ASG and SG duringoil recovery and refining. In the study, the ASG and SG con-tent of soybean and rapeseed oil from various process stepsduring vegetable oil manufacture were examined. The sam-ples from these manufacturing phases were converted to bio-diesel and the contents of ASG and SG were again determin-ed. Raw oil from soybeans contained more ASG and SG thanraw oil from rapeseed. Its share is reduced during oil cultiva-tion processing or refining, so that both oil types producereadily filtered biodiesel subsequent to sludge removal andbleaching. The oil mills participating in this study providedvaluable information with regard to possible process techno-logy-related reduction methods of these secondary compo-nents and are able to offer their biodiesel customers a cor-respondingly high oil quality. As a reverse conclusion of thereport, it should be noted that biodiesel facilities can also beretrofitted with corresponding process steps to prepare theraw materials prior to reesterification, thus permitting vege-table oils with a variety of raw mate-rial qualities to be uti-lized in a given facility. In this context, the expert commit-tee members were presented with another project promotedby the UFOP which deals with the development of a processin which nanoparticles are embedded in the surface structureso that sterylglycosides can be extracted according to the“key-and-lock” principle by fitting into the surface structurewhere they are briefly bound and can be loosened as part ofa rinsing step. The objective of this process is the develop-ment of a process to eliminate biodiesel filtration of com-pounds with a negative influence which is also cost effectiveand exhibits a low energy requirement. The process is beingdeveloped by the Fraunhofer Institut für Grenzflächen- undBioverfahrenstechnik IGB, in Stuttgart.

Within the context of further report presentation of studiespromoted by the UFOP which were underway during the reportyear, Dr. Ulrike Schümann of the University of Rostock presen-ted the results of her project on practical applications of theemployment of antioxidants in rapeseed oil fuel. The results ofthe “warehouse study” subproject are currently available as afinal report on the UFOP homepage. The presentation focusedon the report on the practical test carried out on two tractorengines. No negative effects on the engines by the employedantioxidant were determined. At the same time, longer oilchange intervals were possible. Neither tractor exhibited anyneed for a premature lubricant oil change. The researchers did,however, have negative comments with regard to the ease ofhandling the additive and, in particular, of the processemployed in manufacturing the rapeseed/antioxidant mixture.

The user cannot be expected to employ a powdered antioxi-dant, since mixing problems have been found to occur duringthe manufacture of the parent solution during practical appli-cations since this requires vigorous stirring or pumping. It wastherefore suggested to the antioxidant manufacturer that theadditive be offered in a suitable parent solution.

Markus Winkler, DEUTZ AG, presented the preliminary results ofthe continuous durability tests on EU COM III B emission levelsDEUTZ Agripower engines with the SCR system for approval ofbiodiesel. In his introduction, the presenter initially spoke ofthe development of emission legislation requirements for off-road vehicles and the exhaust gas aftertreatment strategiesavailable and those pursued by DEUTZ AG.

Markus Winkler clearly explained that the technological chal-lenges lay not merely in the development of appropriateengines and exhaust gas aftertreatment systems, but, in thearea of compact tractors, also in the design of their spatialarrangement or the possibilities of those systems whichalready exist based on tractor design. The particular objec-tive of this project was a reduction in the NOx efficiency atlow SCR system operating temperatures. It is assumed thatthis reduction efficiency can be traced to uncombusted bio-diesel on the catalyzer surface. However, the phenomenoncan be reversed by the SCR catalyzer being fully combustedat higher exhaust temperatures. Neither, within the contextof the preceding projects, was any poisoning from calciumand sodium observed during the field tests. Due to the factthat tractor engines are generally subject to enormous loads,corresponding results are anticipated to help clarify the pre-viously described question. Legislation provides for the chal-lenges to be met by the test profile. At this exhaust gaslevel, a dynamic test cycle must, for the first time, be con-ducted. The SCR systems must be monitored. Beyond this,the exhaust gas level also views that the emission thresholdvalues must be maintained over the engine’s service life(8,000 hours of operation) to gain practical approval. In thiscontext, the question of whether a reference fuel would berequired to obtain approval was posed.

With regard to the problem of exhaust gas treatment for pas-senger vehicles, there is also the question of engine oil dilu-tion. Gunter Braungarten from the Institute for MobileSystems at the University of Magdeburg presented the resultsof a proposed project to optimize late injection in order toreduce oil dilution when running on B7, B10 and B30. Thereason for this continuing project is the UFOP proposed pro-ject being carried out at the same institution to examineengine oil dilution for B10 with delayed injection in theregeneration mode. The basic problem lies in the fact thatthe fuel is not completely evaporated in the cylinder but por-tions are transferred to the oil pan via the cylinder wall andthe oil film which coats it.

Expert Committee for Biofuels and RenewableRaw Materials

As part of the meeting held 05/11/2010, the members initial-ly informed themselves with respect to the implementation ofthe “Biofuels” biomass sustainability ordinance. The currentstate of ordinance conversion, as well as the tasks faced bythe Federal Institute for Agriculture and Nourishment (Bundes-anstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, BLE) and, for thelatter, the procedures related to the recognition of certifica-tion systems and certification offices, as well as the extensivework carried out by the BLE in the form of a guideline explai-ning the ordinance and administrative requirements were ex-plained. At the time of the meeting, the ISCC certification sys-tem had already received preliminary approval. The REDcertcertification system developed by the biodiesel industry asso-ciations was in its approval phase. The focus of the presenta-tion was on the documentation requirements with respect tobiomass origin (among other things, self-declarations on thepart of the farmer) and, more importantly, on the requirementfor evidence of greenhouse gas reduction in accordance withthe renewable energy guideline (2009/28/EG) as a future pre-requisite for tax credits or to meet the quota requirement. TheUFOP views the greenhouse gas reduction of 50 percent by2017 as a significant challenge since, in contrast to biodieselproduced from palm or soybean oil, the total greenhouse gasbalance for rapeseed oil methyl ester depends on the rawmaterial cultivation and the associated greenhouse gas emis-sions, as it is on this that its competitiveness will depend ifthe greenhouse gas quota requirement is introduced in 2015.

It is possible that taxes on biofuels will be directed at thisrequirement as early as 2013. However, it remains open towhich extent, and to what degree the tax levied on the GHGreduction potential will be anchored in law. As a result of thedecision-making process related to the economic accelerationlegislation, the energy tax on biodiesel was fixed at 18.6 centsper liter until 2012.

The UFOP underlined that a continuation of the BiofuelRoadmap is desirable, so that all participating economic areas(automotive, mineral oil, biofuel industry) can adjust them-selves to a future biofuel strategy. In this context, the Memo-randum for the Addition of Biofuels from the BiofuelAssociations (BDBe, UFOP and VBD) was mentioned. This so-called “combined quota” comprises a quantity and a green-house gas quota for biofuels and is intended to ensure that by2012, biodiesel and bioethanol will be able to comply with therenewable energy guideline of 10 percent of the energy re-quirements in the transport sector being replaced by renewa-ble energy.

Finally, the expert committee dealt with the state of stan-dardization and the additional need for action with respect to

rapeseed oil fuel. The current state of creating a final standardfor rapeseed fuel in accordance with DIN 51605 was presented.The chairman of the DIN UA 632.2 subcommittee at theFAM/DIN is Dr. Edgar Remmele, TFZ, Straubing. The white paperon the standard will hopefully be published in October orNovember, 2010, so that the final standard can takethe changes in fuel quality and designation ordinance(10. BlmSchV) expected to be introduced by the end of the year.Presented were the changes made to tighten the quality para-meters for phosphorus, calcium and magnesium. These elementsare a subject of constant discussion due to their negative inter-actions with currently employed emissions treatment systems.Aside from initiating corresponding round robin tests to validatethe test methods for these elements, the research activities ofthe technology and research center for renewable raw materialsin Straubing also concentrate on the question of options foraftertreatment process technology to further reduce the amountof these elements in rapeseed oil collected in decentralizedpressing facilities. Results of tested processes that permitted areduction in the range of 1 milligram per kilogram were presen-ted, indicating that a simultaneous further test proceduredevelopment is needed in order to determine the actual elementcontent. A test method for determining the trace elementcontent in vegetable oils by means of optical emission spectro-analysis (ESA) with an inductively coupled plasma (CP OES) waspresented. At the time this report was being collected, thestandard was still in its objection phase.

The topic of phosphorus and metal content was also the focusof the subsequently presented project. The UFOP has requestedthat the ASG Analytik-Service Gesellschaft mbH evaluate themetal, sulfur and phosphorus content of biodiesel. The im-pulse for this request arose from the expert commissionagainst the background of a planned project funded by theUFOP and leading to the approval of Euro IV DEUTZ engines asthe result of the project, to be operated with a final 30 per-cent share of biodiesel. The limitation on this approval wasnot due to the engine involved, but rather on its exhaust gasaftertreatment system. Within the context of product liability,this limitation can be considered to be a precautionary requi-rement since, in the opinion of the UFOP, the quality of bio-diesel is far higher in Germany. The basis for the evaluation isthe database of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft QualitätsmanagementBiodiesel e. V. which currently holds more than 3,500 full ana-lyses of biodiesel samples. An interim report based on the ini-tial raw data evaluations was presented. The final report withregard to this intention will be published by the end of 2010.

Further minor components of biodiesel which determine itsquality include impurities which occur naturally in oil vege-tables. In turn, these include so-called phytosteroles. Steryl-glycosides (SG) and acyl-sterylglycosides (ASG) have beensuspected of negatively affecting the filtration ability of bio-diesel, even as an additive to diesel fuel. This problem is

2009/2010 Report

|2322|

which is also referred to as “catalyst poison” since it producesan irreversible film on the coating, thus, depending on itsconcentration in the biodiesel and on the engines use profile,not only reducing the catalyst transformation rate but also, asshown by another UFOP sponsored project, even increases thecarcinogenic share of the exhaust gas.

Within the context of establishing quality manufacturing,the biodiesel industry is particularly concerned with furtherdecreasing these elements in biodiesel. The fact that no evi-dence of the qualitative progress can be provided by corres-ponding test methods with regard to the actual contentrepresents a problem.

Against this background, the value for phosphorus currentlycited in the European biodiesel standard, EN 14214, is 4 mg/kg(as opposed to the earlier level of 10 mg/kg), and a value ofonly 2 mg/kg is being discussed. With regard to the metal con-tent, the highest permissible values for “ash formers” such as Kand Na as well as Ca and Mg is 5 mg/kg. However, the results ofthe AGQM quality examinations confirm that, as a rule, the ana-lysis values for the cited elements lie at the very limits of cur-rent analyses. Critically noted by the automotive industry withregard to the cited elements is the lack of evaluation of teststudies for the cited elements that take the threshold values inaccordance with the required standard for biodiesel intoaccount, leading to the conclusion that a significant contami-nation of the particle filters can be anticipated.

For this reason, the applicant noted the DEUTZ AG project(continuous operational testing on a test stand with B100EURO IV – UFOP 2008/2009 annual report, pg. 57) sponsoredby the UFOP. Within the context of this proposed project, itwas stated that, taking the indicated highest values for metalcontent volumes defined in biodiesel standard EN 141214 intoaccount, these have already been implemented for theemployment of B100, provided that the approval for cleanfuels is granted for engines operating without exhaust after-treatment systems. In the case of engines operating with ex-haust aftertreatment systems, the approval would be limitedto a maximum 30 percent share of biodiesel in the diesel fuel.

This project, for the first time, carried out an extensive eval-uation of the metal and phosphorus content in biodieselbased on the largest internationally known database. Thisincludes the analytical results collected by the AGQM overthe past 10 years (approximately 3,500), together with sup-plementary analytical results available to the Analytik-Service GmbH. Again for the first time, this study forms aninternationally cited overview which will provide a properlyprepared overview of the measured concentrations of thecited elements. And finally, the preparation of this study isbased on a recommendation of the DEUTZ AG, which, withregard to the evaluation of the biodiesel quality for the cited

elements also indicates the need for a correction of the actu-al quality situation.

The final report is expected to be submitted by the end of 2010.

Screening Suitable Monomer Liquefier Systems andSecondary Examinations for the Molecular Detection ofAcrylated Sterylglycosides (ASG)

Project sponsorship: Fraunhofer Institut für Grenzflächen- undBioverfahrenstechnik IGB, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart

Duration: April, 2010, to July, 2010

In Germany, biodiesel has been employed as a fuel alternativefor more than 20 years. As a result of developments in fuelquality, as well as engine developments against the back-ground of increasing emission requirements, the last 5 yearshave observed a phenomenon described as nonspecific “filteroffset”.

The introduction of Euro 3 engines also resulted in the develop-ment of new fuel filters which are characterized particularly bythe significant reduction in their pore diameters. This resulted infrequent engine operation problems in truck fleets caused by fil-ter buildup. In the past, this phenomenon only arose when cleanfuels were used. However, over the past 3 years, clogged filtershave increasingly also been reported from public service stations.

Since then, the so-called sterylglycosides which are a naturalcomponent of vegetable oils or biodiesel have been determin-ed to be a possible cause.

The objective of the project is to develop surface-activenanoparticles which can reversibly bond these substances(“key-and-lock” principle), to significantly improve the fil-tration ability of biodiesel and, to develop new approachesfor the conversion into a process which can be integratedinto existing biodiesel facilities.

Optimization of the Internal Engine Delayed Injectionin the Regeneration Mode of a Passenger Vehicle DieselEngine, in Order to Reduce Oil Dilution when Operatingwith the Mixed Fuels, B7, B10 and B30

Project sponsorship: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magde-burg, Institut für Mobile Systeme – Lehrstuhl Kolbenmaschinen,in Zusammenarbeit mit der Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg

Duration: August, 2009, to April, 2010

The continued introduction of biodiesel and the stabilizationof the rapeseed cultivation area at the current level are sig-nificantly influenced by whether the current 7 percent by

By optimizing delayed injection by means of a so-called “mul-tiple delayed injection”, a test is to be carried out to determi-ne whether this problem can be solved in this manner and ifequally greater additive amounts are possible without theneed for a premature oil change. The project comes to theresult that the unevaporated portion of the fuel increases withan increasing RME portion in the fuel and that, therefore, thetotal fuel input to the engine oil during the engine’s regenera-tion mode increases too. With respect to the total fuel input inthe regeneration mode, no significant difference between fiveand six injections was detected for B10. The difference bet-ween six and seven injections of B30 indicated a 94 percent infuel input increase over B7 and, for seven injections, approxi-mately 70 percent higher when compared to B7. The RME inputwas, however, disproportionally greater. The cause is RME’shigher boiling progress, when compared with diesel fuel.However, splitting the delayed injection, the total fuel andthus the biodiesel input, can be significantly reduced.B7: increase by approximately 20 percent; B10: by approxi-mately 22 percent; B30: by approximately 27 percent.

No additional reductions in fuel input during delayed injecti-ons by the employment of additional optimization measurescan be anticipated for the engine used in the project.However, from the institute’s perspective, an optimization ofthe delayed injection in the area of the output stroke canresult in a significant reduction in the fuel injection into theengine oil. The question arises of whether an optimization ofthe delayed injection located on the primary injector can pro-duce an additional reduction in the biodiesel input to theengine oil. This does, however, presuppose that the enginemanagement system permits an independent alteration of thefirst and second delayed injection so that, in particular, areduction in fuel injection onto the cylinder walls can beachieved.

Within the context of a scholarship funded by the UFOP,Christoph Pabst at the vTI Braunschweig Technical Collegeexamined the interactions between fuel mixtures with a highbiogenity content on engines equipped with SCR exhaust gasaftertreatment systems. The purpose of the test was to studythe biodiesel compatibility with modern aftertreatment sys-tems such as those currently installed in Euro V engines andwhich are scheduled for use in future Euro VI engines. AsChristoph Pabst noted, the literature contains practically noresults on this topic, which differs greatly from results for die-sel fuel. The available results cannot be traced back to syste-matic, scientific examinations, but instead should, at bestonly be assessed as individual results. For example, statementssuch as the claim that mixing diesel fuel with biodiesel willlead to lower regeneration temperatures and therefore possiblysimplify filter regeneration can be found. Christoph Pabst pre-sented the first engine tests. Test runs using reference dieselfuel and a B20 blend (RME) in an ESC and a World Harmonized

Stationary Cycle (WHSC) test. It was found that the enginewith the aftertreatment system fell significantly short of theEuro IV threshold value during the ESC test. The Euro V valueof 2 g/kWh is not, however, reached with respect to NOx emis-sions. It should also be noted that while the emissions in rawexhaust gas increased when the B20 blend was employed, thevalues after the catalyzer exhibited no significant difference.Comparing the results taken after the aftertreatment systemwith the raw values, it becomes clear that the nitrous oxidesand the hydrocarbons can be markedly reduced. ChristophPabst further noted that the WHSC test is new and is currentlybeing introduced internationally. Within the context of theongoing tests, the WHSC test was only compared with the ESCtest when diesel fuel was involved. The new test cycle resultedin increases in the emissions of CO, HC and NOx and, it follows,that reaching or complying with the required legal exhaust gasthreshold values is made more difficult by this cycle.

Prof. Dr. Meyer of the University of Potsdam reports on the sta-tus of the proposed project to reduce the boiling point curve ofbiodiesel by metathesis. The intended objective is to createbiodiesel with a boiling and therefore combustion curve similarto that of diesel fuel by catalytically shortening the formerschain. This could possibly provide a solution to the problem ofengine oil dilution discovered at the University of Magdeburgand present a method of minimizing this through an optimizeddelayed injection. A variety of commercially available catalyststo perform metathesis were presented. However, these result inproduct mixtures that depend on the type of catalyst and theamount of employed catalyst. Initial examinations confirm thatthe boiling point behavior can be considerably improved bythis procedure, but the problems of catalyst separation and theoptimization of the reaction conditions still remain. A subse-quent study should attempt to determine how this process canbe implemented from a process technology aspect. The enginetests will be carried out at the technical college with thecooperation of Coburg University.

Proposed UFOP Projects

Short Study to Evaluate the Metal, Sulfur and Phos-phorus Content of Biodiesel

Project guidance: ASG Analytik-Service GmbH, TrentinerRing 30, 86356 Neusäss

Duration: March, 2010, to April, 2010

The automotive industry sees the metal and phosphorus con-tent as a critical criterion with respect to the service life ofexhaust aftertreatment systems. An increased metal content(Ca, Mg, K, Na) results in an increase in the ash content of theparticle filter and thus to a reduction in the maintenanceinterval (particle filter cleaning). Phosphorus is an element

2009/2010 Report

|2524|

developers to optimize exhaust aftertreatment and on fuelmanufacturers to improve fuels, particularly in view of reducingoperating expenses which tends to lead to extending mainte-nance intervals. With regard to engine compatibility in con-junction with the required exhaust aftertreatment, no results orexperiences related to biodiesel as a clean fuel or as an additi-ve are currently available.

The objective of this project is to employ test stand cycles tostudy the emissions or possible interactions.

Fleet Test with Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil andBiodiesel Blends, as well as to Study Exhaust Quality

Project sponsorship: vTI, Braunschweig, Hochschule Coburg,Steinbeis-Transferzentrum Biokraftstoffe

Duration: April, 2010, to March, 2011

As an alternative substitute to diesel fuel, the motor vehicleindustry basically prefers hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) ins-tead of biodiesel. The chemical fuel properties permit an addi-tion to diesel fuel at any desired ratio. Not the least againstthe background that, in Germany, the employment of vegetableoil as part of the process to create HVO (co-refining), the UFOPobjective must be to open a sales window for rapeseed oil in as

timely a manner as possible. Due to the far reaching significan-ce of the employment of vegetable oils as a raw material for themanufacture of HVO, this option must be tested, in particular,for rapeseed oil as a sales market.

The scientific objective of the proposed project is to prove thesuitability of hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO) for fleet opera-tions of series vehicles and, simultaneously, to carry out exhaustand efficiency studies on passenger vehicles from several emis-sion classes. Individually, the exhaust studies are not merelylimited to hazardous materials, but also to unlimited compo-nents, fine particle emissions and mutagenicity. Such extensiveexhaust tests are unknown for a fleet examination with HVOand biodiesel additives.

Beyond this, experience shall be gained regarding how and theextent to which blends of hydrotreated vegetable oils and bio-diesel influence an extension of the oil change intervals andcan therefore contribute to extending sustainable mobilitywhile protecting resources.

One important element of this combined proposed project (car-ried out in cooperation with, among others, VW, OMV, NesteOil), is the accompanying PR work. In particular in this regard,the UFOP will contribute to the promotion of domestic rapeseedas a raw material.

volume addition of biodiesel in diesel fuel is not only increa-sed, but whether engine-related technical assurances of thecontinuous harmlessness at this addition level can be provi-ded, that is, that the engines can be approved by the auto-motive manufacturers. The altered fuel quality guidelinepublished in the European Union’s official gazette anticipa-tes that member nations will work rapidly towards a dieselstandard to permit the introduction of B10. Basically, withthis objective, the commission has given the CEN a mandate.

In other member nations such as France, certain require-ments even allow B30 to be approved for fleet use.

The project intends to not only increase the knowledge rela-ted to the employment of biodiesel as an additive componentwith regard to the standardization process being initiated forthe introduction of B10, but to also examine whether ahigher additive share (B30) remains harmless.

The reason for this proposed project lies in the so-called“delayed injection” to reduce engine oil dilution. VW hasdeveloped a “multistage” delayed injection to basically redu-ce cylinder wall contact by the fuel. This objective is particu-larly important to biodiesel as it is only incompletely evapo-rated from the engine oil.

Long-term Durability Tests and Field Tests UsingEmission Class IIIB DEUTZ-Agripower EnginesEquipped with SCR Systems for Biodiesel Approval

Project sponsorship: DEUTZ AG, Entwicklungswerk Porz,Bereich Technologie-Entwicklung, Ottostraße 1, 51145 Cologne

Duration: May, 2010, to September 2011

Increasingly critical voices are being heard from the motorvehicle industry with regard to the employment of biodiesel asa clean fuel, but also with respect to its employment as anadditive with larger shares (>7 percent), noting the contamina-tion by so-called “ash formers” (in biodiesel: dissolved metalssuch as K, Na, Mg and Ca). Measures are underway to denyapproval or to defeat any increase in the additive level (B10,B30, etc.). Politicians are now even employing this discussionto ask questions regarding the option of increasing the additi-ve content on biodiesel (for example, B30). To this extent,there exists an urgent need for action to offer a proper evalua-tion of the employment of biodiesel as a clean fuel and, in theend, as an additive for modern engines operating with an SCRexhaust gas aftertreatment system.

The project’s objective is directed at the employment of biodieselas a clean fuel and, therefore, simultaneously also addresses thequestion of the use of biodiesel as an additive. At the same time,

the question of the significance of phosphorus content on theservice life of the SCR system is also examined. Phosphorus is alsoviewed as an element which must be critically assessed withregard to future approval on the part of the motor vehicle indus-try (see above). Within the context of this proposed project, bio-diesel is used in the currently most up-to-date off-road engines(not tied to traffic). By no later than 2011, these engines will bebe placed in agricultural equipment in order to meet the man-dated emission standard. Time pressure on this proposed projectis correspondingly high. DEUTZ AG is among the world’s largestmanufacturers of diesel engines. It should also be noted thatDEUTZ AG manufactures engines for the commercial vehicle area(Volvo trucks, among others). To this extent, the proposed projectalso possesses an important signaling effect for the employmentof biodiesel in the shipping industry.

Scholarship for Systematic Studies on the InteractionBetween Fuels with a High Biogenity Content, UsingEngines Equipped with SCR as an Example

Project sponsorship: Institut für Agrartechnologie undBiosystemtechnik, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI),Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig

Duration: January, 2010, to December, 2011

The Euro 4 exhaust gas standard has been in place through-out Europe since 2005. At MAN, compliance is achieved bythe use of the PM CAT, and, at Mercedes-Benz, by SCR(Selective Catalytic Reduction) technology. Until now,Mercedes-Benz has approved its systems for biodiesel. Howdevelopment will proceed depends, not the least, on theongoing developments in biofuel additives. If a desire tocontinue to offer fuels with a high biogenity content, appro-priate fuel mixtures must be developed. It is unclear whetherSCR systems are compatible with biodiesel and its blends inevery instance.

Test stand construction has been completed, the initial mea-surement results are available.

Examination of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils (HVO),Biodiesel and Diesel Fuel (DF) in a Euro VI Engine

Project sponsorship: vTI, Braunschweig, Hochschule Coburg,Steinbeis-Transferzentrum Biokraftstoffe

Duration: April, 2010, to December, 2010

Not merely passenger vehicle manufacturers, but the commer-cial vehicle industry are currently facing intense time pressurein order to be able to offer EURO 6 emission level engines by2011. EURO 6 exhaust level makes high demands of engine

2009/2010 Report

|2726|

Chairman

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel MunackInstitut für Agrartechnologie und Biosystemtechnikdes Johann Heinrich von Thünen-InstitutesBundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig

Members

Elmar BaumannVerband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie e. V.Am Weidendamm 1 A, 10117 Berlin

Dr. Jürgen FischerADM Research GmbHSeehafenstraße 24, 21079 Hamburg

Dr. Thomas GarbeVolkswagen AGPostfach 17 69, 38436 Wolfsburg

Prof. Dr. Jürgen KrahlHochschule Coburg (University of Applied Sciences Coburg)Friedrich-Streib-Straße 2, 96450 Coburg

Rolf LutherFuchs Europe Schmierstoffe GmbHFriesenheimer Straße 15, 68169 Mannheim

Dr. Edgar RemmeleTechnologie- und Förderzentrum imKompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende RohstoffeSchulgasse 18, 94315 Straubing

Margret SchmidtShell Global Solutions (Deutschland) GmbH, PAE lab, GSMR/1Hohe-Schaar-Straße 36, 21107 Hamburg

Dr. rer. nat. Ulrike SchümannLeiterin Betriebsstoff- und Umweltlabor der Universität RostockAlbert-Einstein-Straße 2, 18059 Rostock

Dr. Andreas SchütteFachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V.Hofplatz 1, 18276 Gülzow

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helmut TschökeInstitut für Mobile Systeme der Universität MagdeburgUniversitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg

Dr. Jörg UllmannRobert Bosch GmbHDiesel Systems DS/ENF-FQSPostfach 30 02 20, 70442 Stuttgart

Dr. Dieter WaltherDeutsche BP AktiengesellschaftGlobal Fuels Technology BochumQuerenburger Straße 46, 44789 Bochum

Dr. Alfred WestfechtelEmery Oleochemicals GmbHHenkelstraße 67, 40589 Düsseldorf

Dr. Thomas WilharmASG Analytik-Service Gesellschaft mbHTrentiner Ring 30, 86356 Neusäß

Markus WinklerF&E-Zentrum der DEUTZ AGOttostraße 1, 51149 Cologne

Guests:

Dr. Hartmut HeinrichDr. Heinrich ConsultFöhrenweg 6, 38108 Braunschweig

Members of the Expert Committee for Biofuels andRenewable Raw Materials

Valid as of: August, 2010

2009/2010 Report

Table 1: Domestic Biofuel Consumption

Table 2: Monthly Domestic Biofuel Consumption

Table 3: Biodiesel Exports

Table 4: EU Production Capacities for Biodiesel

Table 5: EU Biodiesel Production

Table 6: Biodiesel Production Capacities in Germany

Index of Tables in the Attachment

Source: Federal Office for the Economy and Export Controls, AMI

|2928|

Table 2: Monthly Domestic Biofuel Consumption, in 1,000 t

2007 2008 2009January 92.91 135.05 125.55February 98.19 117.40 176.07March 107.19 122.26 181.10April 111.98 135.35 195.36May 117.07 130.45 194.28June 122.29 137.81 192.06July 119.85 143.87 203.74August 133.89 133.63 209.86September 129.10 139.32 204.82October 127.71 149.92 194.01November 132.71 130.71 211.37December 130.46 137.06 184.35Average 118.61 134.40 189.38

2007131.28122.29150.94144.83158.47146.17171.38133.05178.07188.73158.83137.25151.77

200864.9337.1573.7584.91114.10139.25120.95111.74111.42114.8159.3150.1490.21

200914.1227.2237.2928.1016.1014.0520.0121.2331.4721.7121.4312.4922.10

2007224.19220.47258.13256.81275.54268.46291.23266.93307.17316.45291.54267.71270.39

2008199.98154.55196.01220.26244.56277.05264.82245.37250.74264.73190.02187.20224.61

2009139.67203.29218.39223.46210.38206.11223.75231.09236.29215.72232.80196.84211.48

Total for biodiesel

2007 2008 200929.67 25.84 8.6279.63 24.16 4.6845.70 20.52 5.8145.66 28.38 8.4037.77 32.44 6.1999.99 38.30 8.3768.54 33.31 8.9390.79 49.66 8.8361.37 44.09 11.9974.63 41.49 11.1158,59 28.02 8.5463.51 35.17 7.7062.99 33.45 8.26

200741.2937.3247.4943.0337.4739.9539.2138.9734.9034.5429.2336.6138.33

200840.4138.0652.9251.1053.7245.2050.3049.5546.2463.2861.8472.3852.08

2009

Vegetable oil (VOIL)

66.4559.6278.6686.7379.7477.7089.4077.0975.6268.8166.2071.4274.79

BioethanolBiodiesel clean fuelBiodiesel additive

Table 1: Domestic Biofuel Consumption, in 1,000 t

2006Biodiesel additive 934,7Biodiesel clean fuel N.A.Total for biodiesel -Vegetable oil N.A.

-Diesel fuel 29,134.0% share of additives 3.2 %

N.A.N.A.

Bioethanol ETBE 448.3

Bioethanol E 85 -Total for Bioethanol 511.8

22,604.0% share of bioethanol 2.3 %

20071,423.31,821.33,244.6755.8

4,000.529,058.8

4.9 %31,635.9

12.6 %366.2

6.1Bioehtanol additive 63.5 88.6

460.021,243.0

2.2 %

20081,612.81,082.52,695.3401.4

3,096.729,905.6

5.4 %31,389.4

9.9 %366.9

8.5250.9

625.020,568.5

3.0 %

20092,276.3240.6

2,516.999.9

2,616.930,936.2

7.4 %31,276.8

8.4 %202.3

9.0692.7

902.520,240.2

4.5 %Source: Federal Office for the Economy and Export Controls, AMI

Total for biodiesel & vegetable oil

Total for diesel & biodiesel & vegetable oil% share of biodiesel & vegetable oil

Diesel and bioethanol fuels

Table 3: Biodiesel Exports, in t

2008 2009January 9,458 12,612February 35,123 19,303March 29,340 10,598April 52,399 19,645May 72,735 90,666June 73,299 84,338July 103,861 87,188August 117,906 124,193September 67,989 92,788October 41,186 68,306November 25,669 56,136December 30,186 111,039Total 659,150 776,812

200818,37254,52533,58941,70853,98217,07697,29982,16361,518120,42753,98970,491

705,138

2009

Biodiesel imports

25,15550,06042,98330,02130,35732,38051,94072,752103,00783,78783,50069,523

675,465Source: Federal Office of Statistics, AMI

Biodiesel exports

2009/2010 Report

|3130|

Table 4: EU Production Capacities for Biodiesel, in 1.000 t

2004 2005 2006Germany 1,088 1,903 2,681France 502 532 775Italy* 419 827 857The Netherlands - - -Belgium - 55 85Luxembourg - - -Great Britain 15 129 445Ireland* - - -Denmark 44 81 81Greece - 35 75

Portugal - - 146Austria 100 125 134Finland* - - -Sweden 8 12 52Estonia - 10 20Latvia - 5 8Lithuania - 10 10Malta - 2 3Poland - 100 150Slovakia - 89 89Slovenia - 17 17

EU-27 2,246 4,228 6,069

20074,361780

1,366115335

-657690440

246Spain 70 100 224 508

326-

2123520428

2509917

10,289

20085,3021,9801,566571665

-72680140565

4061,267

4851702121351301478

45020667

16,000

20095,2002,5051,9101,036705

-60980140715

4683,656

7073402121351361478

580247100

Czech Republic - 188 203Hungary - - 12Cyprus - 2 2Bulgaria - - -Rumania - - -

2032166581

2031866

215111

32518620435307

Note: Calculations based on 330 working days per year per facility; * = as of 2007 incl. production capacities for hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO); Source: EuropeanBiodiesel Board, national statistics, AMI

20,909

Table 5: EU Biodiesel Production, in 1,000 t

2004 2005 2006Germany 1,035 1,669 2,662France 348 492 743Spain 13 73 99Italy 320 396 447Belgium 1 25Poland 100 116The Netherlands 18Austria 57 85 123Portugal 1 91Denmark/Sweden 71 72 93

Czech Republic 60 133 107Great Britain 9 51 192HungarySlovakia 15 78 82Lithuania 5 7Greece 3 42Latvia 5 7 10Rumania 10Bulgaria 4Estonia 7 1Ireland* 4

EU-27 1,933 3,191 4,890

20072,8908721683631668085267175148

61Finland* 39

1507469

1002636903

5,713

20082,8191,815207595277275101213268231

10485

19210514630107666511024

7,755

20092,5391,959859737416332323310250233

164220

13713310198774429252417

Slovenia 8 11Cyprus 1 1Malta 2 2Others 0 30 30

111134

99184

9910

Note: * = as of 2007 incl. production capacities for hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO); Source: European Bio-diesel Board, national statistics, AMI

9,046

2009/2010 Report

|3332|

Table 6: Biodiesel Production Capacities in Germany

ADM Hamburg AG – Hamburg plantADM Hamburg AG – Leer plantADM Mainz GmbHBioeton Kyritz GmbHBIO-Diesel Wittenberge GmbHBio-Ölwerk Magdeburg GmbHBIOPETROL ROSTOCK GmbHBIOPETROL SCHWARZHEIDE GmbH (formerly Biodiesel Schwarzheide)Biowerk Oberlausitz GmbHBiowerk Sohland GmbHBKK Biodiesel GmbHBKN Biokraftstoff Nord AG (formerly Biodiesel Bokel)Cargill GmbH

580,000120,000275,00080,000120,000255,000200,000150,00050,00050,0004,00035,000300,000

HamburgLeerMainzNordhornWittenbergeMagdeburgRostockSchwarzeheideSohlandSohlandRudolstadtBokelFrankfurt/Main

DBE Biowerk GmbHDelitzscher Rapsöl GmbH & Co. KGEAI Thüringer Methylesterwerke GmbH (TME)ecodasa GmbHecoMotion GmbHEmerald Biodiesel Ebeleben GmbhEmerald Biodiesel Neubrandenburg GmbHEOP Biodiesel AGG.A.T.E. Global Altern. Energy GmbHHHV Hallertauer Hopfenveredelungsgesellschaft mbHKFS-Biodiesel GmbHKL Biodiesel GmbH & Co. KGLPV Landwirtschaftliche Produkt-Verarbeitungs GmbH

99,0004,00055,00050,000212,00090,00040,000130,00058,0007,50030,000120,0005,500

Tangermünde/RegensburgWiedemarHarth-PöllnitzBurgLünenEbelebenNeubrandenburgFalkenhagenHalleMainburgCloppenburgLülsdorfHenningsleben

Louis Dreyfus commodities Wittenberg GmbHMBF Mannheim Biofuel GmbHNEW Natural Energie West GmbHNehlsen GmbHOsterländer Biodiesel GmbH & Co.KGPetrotec GmbHLubminOilRapsol GmbHRapsveredelung VorpommernRheinische Bioester GmbHSüdstärke GmbHSüBio GmbHTECOSOL GmbH (formerly Campa)

200,000100,000260,00033,0004,00085,00060,0006,00038,000150,000100,0004,00075,000

Lutherstadt WittenbergMannheimNeussGrimmenSchmöllnSüdlohnLubminLübzMalchinNeussSchrobenhausenThemarOchsenfurt

Ullrich Biodiesel GmbH/IFBIVerbio Diesel Bitterfeld GmbH & Co. KG (MUW)Verbio Diesel Schwedt GmbH & Co. KG (NUW)Vesta Biofuels Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KGVital Fettrecycling GmbH, Werk EmdenVogtland Bio-Diesel GmbH

Total capacity for 2010

35,000190,000250,000150,000100,0002,000

4,962,000

KaufungenGreppinSchwedtBrunsbüttelEmdenGroßfriesen

Operator/Facility Location Capacity (t/year)

Note: AGQM member; Source: UFOP, FNR, VDB, AGQM / some names abbreviated.

DBV and UFOP recommend procuring biodiesel from members of the working committee.

Quality Management Biodiesel e. V. (AGQM); production capacity of AGQM Members = 3,609,000 tons; valid as of: 08/01/2010.

2009/2010 Report

34| UNION ZUR FÖRDERUNG VONOEL- UND PROTEINPFLANZEN E. V.Claire-Waldoff-Straße 7 • 10117 Berlininfo@ufop.de • www.ufop.de

Published by:

Valid as of: 09/10