bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Colleen Lee

Paggie Leung

Vehicle owners have complained that sulfur-free diesel is less environmentally friendly than the ultra-low- sulfur variety as  vehicles burn it quicker,  meaning they end up using more fuel.
Academics, meanwhile, were divided over the benefits of sulfur-free diesel.
The city's petrol stations stopped selling ultra-low-sulfur diesel  when the government cut the tax on Euro V diesel, commonly known as sulfur-free diesel, in half to 56 HK cents  a litre in December.
The legislature approved the tax concession in November.
It will be compulsory to use Euro V diesel  in Hong Kong from January.
But Yip Wing-ching,  the owner of Great Leader Bus Holdings,  which has about 140 coaches, said sulfur-free diesel  yielded about 10 per cent less energy  than ultra-low-sulfur diesel.
'It [sulfur-free diesel] is totally environmentally unfriendly ... We have to refuel  more often than before,' Mr Yip said.
Stanley Chiang Chi-wai, who owns about 20 container trucks, agreed that vehicles powered by sulfur-free diesel  had to refuel more often.
Academics, however,  had differing views on the issue.
Fung Man-keung, a lecturer at the department of automotive engineering at the Institute of Vocational Education (Lee Wai Lee), said the two kinds of fuel should provide the same amount of kinetic energy.
'I can't see any reason why it [sulfur-free diesel] is said to be less environmentally friendly,' he said. 'Sulfur cannot help increase the kinetic energy [of vehicles].'
Mr Fung said vehicles would not consume more sulfur-free diesel  than the ultra-low  variety.
He said  vehicles that used sulfur-free diesel would discharge fewer suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide, which  would be better for public health.
But Lo Kok-keung, an engineer at Polytechnic University's department of mechanical engineering, said ultra-low-sulfur diesel could in fact generate more energy  than sulfur-free diesel.
He also said sulfur-free diesel would  lead to greater fuel consumption.
'It can reduce emissions of suspended particulates but will generate more carbon dioxide, which will worsen global warming,' he said.
An Environmental Protection Department spokesman said vehicles using Euro V diesel emitted 80 per cent less sulfur dioxide and 5 per cent fewer respirable suspended particulates than those using ultra-low-sulfur diesel.
A Caltex spokeswoman said the company had planned to introduce Euro V diesel in Hong Kong next January but had brought forward  the launch of the diesel 'to remain competitive and to  help diesel users to enjoy the tax concession benefit'.
'Because Hong Kong's service stations are quite small, we cannot afford to sell two different types of diesel because this could not help to achieve economies of scale when most of the customers would choose to buy Euro V diesel at a lower cost due to the tax concession,' the spokeswoman said.



Jury out on benefits of sulfur-free diesel