The UK Govt is struggling with the subject of bioliquids. Under EU directives the term legally covers any liquid of biogenic origin. As such differentiating between biodiesel and pyrolysis oil is legally problematic.

The general desire is to avoid allowing the use of bioliquids for heat and power applications as this will divert some biodiesel and vegetable oils from use in transport.

Unfortunately the term 'bioliquid' also applies to pyrolysis oil - which is effectively 'liquid wood'. This means that as soon as one has converted waste wood into a liquid it would be caught by the same policy decisions being put in place to better target biodiesel, even though pyrolysis oil cannot be used for transportation.

To further complicate the picture it has been perceived necessary to differentiate between pure bioliquids and those having a fossil-energy component. Biodiesel is one such as the methanol used in its production is currently produced from natural gas. The term 'Fossil Derived Bioliquids' has had to be invented to avoid changes to the Energy Act. Few would dispute the somewhat bizarre contradiction in this term. Ironically 'Biomass derived Fossil Fuel' is strictly speaking correct. Perhaps we might have soon to consume 'meat eating herbivore'.

There are very strong reasons why pyrolysis oil should be used for heat and CHP applications as it is both an efficient use and achieves high GHG savings. We continue to try to secure such support. DECC do understand and largely agrees, however navigating the legacy of EU and UK legislation is not easy.

Sadly these sorts of issues only add to the increasingly labyrinthine regulations with which developers of bio-energy projects are increasingly faced.