Waste lubricating oil is from the used lubricating oil left in industrial production activities, depending on the use of the environment, the final composition of waste lubricating oil is different. With the increasing shortage of petrochemical resources and the deterioration of the environment, the evolution of waste oil is also the real needs.
At present, China’s oil filter manufacturers for the waste oil purification method is the physical purification, the basic principle is the use of vacuum, centrifugal force, static electricity, coalescence and other ways to filter excess water of waste lubricating oil, vacuum oil filter can also be used for deep-purification of emulsified waste lubricating oil; Followed by the use of oil filters, filter paper, filter bags, magnetic filters and other impurities in the lubricating oil; Finally, you can also use clay, activated carbon and other similar substances on the waste lubricating oil, to adsorb the black or red material, so as to achieve the effect of decolorization, but please note that if the waste lubricating oil after decolorization is not in the re-use, because the adsorption of lubricants at the same time the additive also adsorbed , after the decolorization, the waste lubricating oil has lost the basic functions, reduced to “base oil” which can only be sold to reconcile the oil refinery to add “the corresponding additives” in order to re-use.
Given the potential impacts of biodiesel production on the edible oils market, Section 3 and 4 assess the potential implications in some detail.
The utilization of biodiesel is not new, since it has been used as a substitute for mineral diesel since early 20th century, but in small quantities. What is new is that from 2005 onwards biodiesel production and use has increased significantly, spearheaded by the EU (mostly in Germany and France), currently responsible for about 80% of the world production. Despite this European dominance, biodiesel production is expected to stabilize in the coming years in the EU, with substantial growth expected in South America (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia) and Asia, as explained in this study.
One of the most serious obstacles to the expansion of the biodiesel industry is the cost of the raw material which can easily represents 60 to over 80% of the total costs, though there are considerable geographical variations depending on the feedstock and local conditions. Therefore, availability of feedstock, cheaply and in large scale, is fundamental to the expansion of this industry. There are two major factors to take into consideration when dealing with feedstocks for biodiesel production. Firstly, is the source, and secondly is composition. In the first case it is important to know if the oil is derived from food on non-food crops; the second consideration is to know the composition of the oil and how appropriate it is as a feedstock (e.g., see Karman, Rowland & Smith, 2008).
Despite the considerable potential of biodiesel, given the growing demand for edible oils and the high cost of the feedstock, this potential may be rather limited in the future unless biodiesel can be extracted from other raw material. Other important constraint is its sustainability, as the extension of land required for biodiesel production is considerable larger than in the case of bioethanol. The extent to which biodiesel may become eventually a global commodity remains uncertain, but it is highly unlikely that it will reach the same level as bioethanol.
The consumption of vegetable oils falls into two major applications: i) food industry, and ii) industrial uses, including biodiesel, which is a more recent trend. The predominant use is for food with over 80% of the market, with the industrial and biodiesel markets far behind. Thus, the rapid demand for vegetable oils has been sparked off by the food market rather than the industrial or biodiesel sectors, contrary to general belief. Although there is a growing role for industrial uses, the food industry is expected to be the dominant factor in the future for reasons already stated above.
It is worth pointing out some particular differences and trends in world consumption of the most important vegetable oils (i.e. rapeseed, palm and soybean):
The use of rapeseed oil for food applications is rather stable with the main growth being in industrial applications since 2003 (specifically biodiesel in Europe).
The use of palm oil for food has actually doubled in the past 8 years. Since 2003, industrial applications are also growing and this may be partly related to biodiesel production, besides other applications in the chemical industry.
The use of soybean oil for food is still increasing. Prior to 2005, industrial uses of soybean oil were marginal and since then they have been growing, mainly for biodiesel production in the USA and South America (primarily Argentina and Brazil).
There are also important new actors and trends in supply and demand to be taken into account. For example, China is rapidly becoming the world-leading importer of vegetable oils; Argentina’s share of the export market is growing rapidly and is becoming one of the largest producer and major exporter of vegetables oils, primarily soybean, due to its favourable conditions. As elsewhere, the rapid expansion of soybean in Argentina is causing alarm due to the many potential ecological and environmental impacts, as explained later.
Although more a national security objective than an economic issue, a key strategic objective associated with biofuels is the achievement of greater energy security through a diversified energy portfolio. Indeed, reduced reliance on imported oil was the main driver behind the earliest experiences with biofuels in Brazil and the US.
The volatility of world oil prices, uneven global distribution of oil supplies, uncompetitive structures governing the oil supply (i.e. the OPEC cartel) and a heavy dependence on imported fuels are all factors that leave many countries vulnerable to disruption of supply. This may impose serious energy security risks, in particular to those countries that are heavily dependent on energy imports. In 2000, oil imports of OECD countries accounted for 52 per cent of their energy requirements, but this is expected to rise to 76 per cent by 2020. Almost all least developed countries are oil importers. Crude oil imports to ACP countries were expected to increase to 72 per cent of their requirements in 2005. Non-OECD countries share 41 per cent of the world oil consumption. Oil supplies, on the other hand, are very unevenly distributed and concentrated in few countries (75 per cent in the Middle East) and are governed by uncompetitive structures.
The above factors, together with the current high oil prices; the future oil demand of new large economies such as China and India, causing uncertainty about future oil availability; the recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine over the price of natural gas (which put EU gas supplies at risk), suggest that the energy security issue will become a higher priority on government agendas.See more about biodiesel project.
Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) had its origins in a view of trade and development that questioned the desirability of developing countries’ liberalising border measures at the same pace as industrialised countries. It emphasises graduation of trade liberalisation according to the development level of the country Involved.
There is a considerable gap between those countries already exporting biofuels and those that are just starting to produce them. Disparities exist both in terms of the development of their biofuel industries and the development level of the countries themselves. There are those countries that are at the forefront of the development of these industries, such as Brazil, the US and the EU and those that, despite having a significant amount of feedstock, still have some way to go in the development of the technology. Many developing and least developed countries can be found within the latter group. These countries may possess significant advantages for biofuel production and trade but need the right incentives for the industry to develop. Many of these countries are those in which the impacts of biofuels, especially in terms of social and economic development, are likely to be felt most strongly.
The countries that today have well developed biofuel industries owe their progress to a set of economic incentives and domestic policies that have fostered the development of their biofuel industries.
The trading system should recognise these differences and allow sufficient policy space for coherent domestic policy mechanisms to allow the development of the biofuel industry in the poorest countries above all. Policies also need to implement measures that support climate change issues.
From the mix of policy tools available to support industry development, it is necessary to identify those that are the most effective but also the least trade distorting, or to create new tools if those available are insufficient.
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) aims to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary trade obstacles. While technical regulations are governed by the main body of the TBT, the Annex contains a Code of Good Practice regarding international voluntary standards such as those elaborated by the International Organization for Standardization. Standards administered by the private sector and other non-governmental entities fall outside the scope of the WTO rules.
The TBT permits technical standards that fulfil legitimate environmental objectives, such as climate change goals. Only product-related barriers are permitted and they should not discriminate against other members’ products, or create unnecessary barriers to trade.
As suggested earlier, at present there are several initiatives underway aiming to address environmental and social practice in biofuel production. To the extent that these are non-governmental voluntary initiatives, they would fall outside the scope of the TBT. However, there is growing concern about the impact of the proliferation of private environmental and social standards on market access for developing countries. These standards are driven by Northern countries’ concerns and are considered a new form of protectionism or so-called ‘market entry’ barriers. Though it is important to have guidance to ensure compliance with minimum environmental and social standards on biofuels, as there is potential for environmental and social damage, these initiatives need to be created in such a way that they do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade. The complex procedures and high costs usually associated with these assurance schemes also raise concerns about the regressive effect these may have on small producers in developing countries.
If biofuels are considered industrial goods, their trade is governed by the rules of GATT and domestic support from the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM).
The SCM monitors the use of subsidies in order to reduce or eliminate their trade distorting effect. The Agreement provides a definition of the term “subsidy”, which contains three basic elements: (i) a financial contribution (ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (iii) which confers a benefit. All three of these elements must be satisfied in order for a subsidy to exist.
There are three subsidy categories: prohibited, actionable and non-actionable. Prohibited subsidies relate to two practices: (1)the use of export subsidies – which are currently used in the biofuel industry and; (2)having receipt of the subsidy contingent upon using domestic inputs over imports. This reduces expected market access benefits for foreign suppliers of competing inputs and, hence, is considered trade distorting. Several programmes of this nature are already in place and more could develop as the industry expands output. For example, the US Department of Agriculture has established a subsidy for refiners to use soya oil as a feedstock for biodiesel. As this subsidy is only available if soya oil is used as the input, firms negatively affected by this subsidy, either petroleum producers or competing input producers, could argue that the subsidy nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to them under the WTO. If the issue was brought to the WTO and argued successfully, the US would have to withdraw this subsidy.
Non-actionable subsidies and actionable subsidies are non-trade distorting and trade distorting subsidies, respectively. According to Loppacher (2005) almost every subsidy that exists in the biofuel industry today would fulfil the conditions necessary to be considered an actionable subsidy under the SCM Agreement. If a subsidy exceeds 5 per cent of a product’s value and is administered in such a way as to be trade distorting, it is an actionable subsidy. Subsidies in both the biodiesel and ethanol markets are significantly higher than the suggested 5 per cent of the value of the product – reaching over 100 per cent of the selling price in the case of US biodiesel.