Executive Summary
Changing global regulations and increasing public awareness have led to a focus on environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) in both industry and academia. While many readers recognize the pursuit of effective EALs as critical for the future, most saw many challenges and drawbacks to the currently available products. Cost and performance were overwhelmingly listed as the two biggest obstacles, with some noting that regulations might be the primary factor influencing the adoption of EALs.
Q.1: What do you think about academic and industry interests regarding environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs)?
Increasing in need as other performance benefits begin to level out but only as a secondary or tertiary trait.
As trend is toward EALs because of customer awareness, government regulations and promotion, academic institutions and industry might work in a collaborative manner to develop advanced level of EALs.
They should actively participate in the development of such a kind of lubrication, studies on the effect of the application of such lubricants, with a strong relation to manufacturers of such lubricants, and in preparing staff capable to properly utilize them and to conduct studies on the behavior of such lubricants.
There is little incentive to adopt biodegradable fluids in U.S. markets. The fluids are available but generally very expensive compared to Group I, II and III based fluids. The further benefit is that they’re usually fire resistant as well. The only place I come across applications for biofluids is in forestry. Even agricultural markets are ambivalent to the use of biofluids.
Industry interest is driven mostly by regulations. Academia has more interest in new things, and the environmental requirements, even if costly, are new frontier to explore.
EALs are the future of lubrication. A likely casualty of vehicle electrification will be mineral-based oil availability, as less crude oil is needed for gasoline and refinery runs are smaller.
I think it’s great if we can identify such a product.
I think they are well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided. The main objective of product development for a new lubricant should be improved lubrication, not environmental acceptability.
I think there is more need to promote this type of technology to protect the environment. I think it should start teaching the reasons why it is important.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the difference between these and lubricants that aren’t EALs. People need to be educated but rarely have enough demand to take the time to learn. I work within the wholesale market.
This is in alignment with sustainable uses of materials.
Many years passed by since researchers started to develop and study environmentally safe lubes, but the applications of these lubes are still in the early stages.
Extensive research into natural and synthetic EALs has been conducted. The industry knows the pros and cons and costs. Many functional options are available.
There is some movement to change, but unless the demand (or regulation imposed) is there, price will be a predominant factor.
It is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue. The obvious benefit is something that degrades our environment at a slower rate as well as decreasing disposal costs.
Academic is probably aware that EALs are mandatory. In my opinion, academic is not conducting lubricant product development. Industrial consists of two categories: (1.) Refiners that produce base oils only. (2.) Smaller organizations (jobbers) purchase base oils and produce lubricants. The jobbers are probably concerned with generating lubricants that are environmentally acceptable.
There is a high focus both in academia and industry, especially in Europe with strict environmental regulations such as REACH and eco-political targets.
In my opinion, this is the new step on lubricant requirements worldwide. It´s a must. All efforts directed to fulfill those requirements are well invested.
There seems to be some interest in both segments.
My concern with academic is that many lack any hands-on experience with the practical application of lubricants. Industry is driven largely by the advice of the lubricant supplier and market trends. In many cases, the lubricant supplier has very little hands-on experience as well; they make lubricants and test them based on a whole range of controlled tests, some of which are questionable in regard to how they relate to the field use of the lubricants.
Do you think EALs are the new trend for the lubricants industry?
Yes
42%
No
6%
Just few areas
51%
Don’t know
1%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
I think there is a lot of misconception about EALs and not a lot of information resources available.
They have been around for many years without a major impact on the market. Many of the traditional oil companies are looking at some new EAL fluids but mainly because of legislation and appearances.
I think it is imperative that we continue to do all we can to replace the current petroleum-based lubricants with those based on renewable resources. The oil supply will not last forever, and if we identify alternatives now, we might have enough time to properly vet them for future use.
I think there is significant and growing interest around EALs.
Academics looking for capability, industry looking for performance benefit payout.
Petroleum has been researched for the past 100 years, so it is probably difficult for academic researchers to be excited to look into new uses of petroleum.
I do not think academics and industry are doing enough on this area.
This will be an interesting topic for academic research at this stage; however, it might not interest the industry that much in the current situation.
The interest of industry and academics regarding EALs is increasing due to climate change and government regulations in some countries like northern Europe.
The industrial interest is overall low and is driven by legislation. There is some good academic research performed, but most of it is far from being commercially realistic, as there is no money in it for industry. What we need is government funding of research with clear commercial end goals, coupled with legislative measures to level the playing field for EALs. Add to this an increased consumer awareness, for example, of what lubricants are used in fields where food crops are grown, and maybe things will start moving.
They have a very high interest in being at the forefront of environmental issues, especially lubricants.
I’m afraid it is still only a “nice to have” instead of a company policy. Too much waiting for legislation, which doesn’t come due to lobbying on government levels.
Academic: There is a lot of interest. Industry: As we are involved in the European Union, it depends on the country. It is true now the interest is increasing but in term of sales is very low. Northern European countries are more interested and involved.
It is a good direction to go in. The effort will help environmentally.
Industry is looking for the economic and competitive substitute, while academic is not much concerned about the drain interval period.
From a hydraulic pump and motor industry standpoint, while I support the use of biodegradable lubricants, I think there is a real lack of understanding among customers about the differences between biodegradable fluids and mineral oils regarding fluid compatibility and fluid lifetime. From an academic standpoint, it is a lot more difficult to find information on biodegradable lubricant additives and how they interact with surfaces, compared to the dozens of papers studying the formation of a ZDDP tribofilm.
I believe that EALs should be a main focus for the lubrication industry. As regulations and awareness increases, the push for better understanding from consumers and lubricant companies should be on the forefront of technology.
Nice thought as long as the environmental cost to produce is less than the environmental cost of not producing the product.
Making sure we reduce any form of environment contamination is at the forefront of everyone’s concern.
The interest shown by the industry regarding EALs is by “constraint.” The academic interest shown is driven by “where can we get another government grant.”
In my opinion, all subjects regarding products or services environmentally sustainable for industry and academic has become strong already in the last 10 years. Academic has an important role in this topic to promote it to new students that soon will be working in industry. Regarding industry, there is an approach where the sustainable image also is very important for the image and business. Indeed, it is changing the image where industry is always looking for price, performance and lastly environment. Considering this scenario, lubricants with environmental and price approach are becoming stronger in industry goals, and also bring opportunity for developments in performance improvements.
I think it is important to learn about these lubricants.
Q.2: What is the main challenge in promoting EALs for commercial applications?
Lower performing versus conventional lubricants with a higher cost.
(1.) High cost. (2.) Balancing performance with environmental acceptability.
I think cost is the main challenge, and to a lesser degree performance. Performance is getting better with biobased fluids but still not up to mineral oil-based fluids. When you combine much higher cost and poorer performance, it’s not a great marketing position. In some areas, EALs are definitely gaining traction.
Show that the profits from improving the environmental impact of such lubricants either exceed the losses in the area of tribological properties or that, in some cases, there are no such losses—so optimization is needed and good training of users and designers to obtain maximum profit but on a wider scale.
Price. It is costly to develop a new commercial lubricant and adding the requirement to be environmentally acceptable adds to the expenses.
Achieving equivalent or superior performance at a competitive price. The price might be higher than conventional fluids, but the key is to show superior cost in use, including disposal.
Cost, compatibility with other product components, amount needed for the function.
I think legislation is a challenge in some parts of the world. Some countries are more proactive in moving toward these new fluids. The main reason for some countries and/or clients for not using them is related to the cost of the products. I am not sure if we have environmentally friendly fluids for all applications and if there are areas more vulnerable. Knowledge of these areas and availability of these type of products to be used should be communicated much more.
Cost difference.
Promoting that new technology is overcoming the previous problems of EALs.
Cost is the biggest challenge. It requires government environmental laws (with enforcement) to push end-users into switching to greener products. With the fishing industry, as in many other unregulated industries, the bottom line is always to keep costs low.
They typically do not perform as well as their less acceptable counterparts, so there must be something (price, lead time, packaging application) that provides more value to the end-user than performance warrants.
Their lifetime is often not long enough.
The main challenge is biodegradability. Long-chain normal paraffins are known to be biodegradable.
As a member of the aerospace community, I can state it is very difficult to substantiate and approve alternate fluids. They have to compete with airworthiness-approved fluids, which are in service for decades. It will require further R&D efforts for substantiation.
Cost and, in some cases, performance.
Industry is under increasing pressure to reduce cost; these lubricants will cost more, so I see price versus benefit as the major issues.
High cost and limited performance and temperature range.
Categorization and terminology. Need to promote understanding of both. Green oil (recyclable), biodegradable (requirements of general vessel permit) and non-toxic (no heavy metals). All three get lumped into the term “environmentally friendly,” yet each have a different meaning. Few understand.
Generally, it is cost and promoting to the customer the products are now as good as conventional products in service life capabilities.
Cost and equal or better performance versus mineral oil-based products.
Currently it is the cost associated with them.
Failures of the past. EALs have come a long way.
Before EALs can become mainstream, they need to give equivalent or better performance for the same or lower cost. In the meantime, the most popular applications will be in those areas that need some kind of environmental performance feature.
Lack of acceptance in many applications due to unrecognized value.
There is a “don’t change anything” mentality that’s arisen from our quality culture. Changes require a lot of paperwork that permeates throughout the supply change. People are more comfortable maintaining the status quo just a few more years until they can retire.
What is the main challenge for EALs ?
Technique barrier
49%
Price
62%
Attention of the public
13%
Regulations
24%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Total exceeds 100% because respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer.
The main challenge is to get industry involved in this area.
Market demands and cost increase.
Environmental lubricants should start with government regulations; promotion will not be effective without government regulation.
Price. A basic EAL will always be more expensive than a mineral oil product, as the price of a vegetable oil is roughly twice that of a mineral oil. It is first in the synthetic segment that ester-based lubricants can compete with other synthetics.
A higher price for EALs and all the investment to fully qualify for all compatibilities (metals, plastics, seals, hoses).
There are no manufacturers who would produce the EAL base stocks using a continuous process. All EAL base stocks are produced in batch processes, resulting in higher price, quality fluctuations and broad diversity of chemistries, which lead to fluid compatibility, disposal, recycling and other issues.
There are two issues. In the 1990s, biodegradable lubricants were introduced into the market. The performance of these products was very questionable. Nowadays quality products based on synthetic esters or well-refined natural base oils still have the burden of what happened 25 years ago. Being more expensive, customers are very skeptical about the performance and will only use these lubricants when legislation requires. The quality/performance image must be fixed. Legislation alone will not move customers to EALs—performance will. Legislation can only support and accelerate.
Durability and performance.
The product is more expensive—the end-user is not prepared to move from conventional to biolubes, mainly the small/medium.
In the marine industry, the challenge is overcoming water retention. Advertising that an EAL can hold up to 20% water and still properly lubricate scares the end-user.
Drain interval, oxidation stability, etc. are the issue.
It seems like right now, the antiwear and extreme-pressure protection in many biodegradable hydraulic fluids just isn’t as good as ZDDP-containing mineral oil and can cause failure in weaker/cheaper material components, which perform fine with mineral oils. Additionally, a lack of understanding of the base fluid and fluid additives adds another challenge for fluid-related failure cause analysis, which can cause distrust of the fluid by customers.
Unfortunately, customers are most likely to be happy with the status quo until a mishap takes place. At that time, the incident possibly has affected the environment and/or possibly caused an unwanted scenario, which might never be recovered from.
None of us need the exercise of chasing political windmills. For every one of these environmental lubricant projects, we must ask if it is really needed and if, in the end, the net result is positive. If the answer is “yes because the government says so,” industry push back has to be part of the equation.
Will the promotion of EALs have difficulties in developing countries?
Yes, definitely
54%
Yes, sort of
25%
No, not really
13%
No, definitely not
0%
Don’t know
8%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
Customer believes they provide less protection for their assets.
The challenge is this: Does the performance of an EAL justify the larger cost for the lubricant? If purchasing such a lubricant is to avoid violation fees imposed by government agencies, then the use is by constraint, not “This is a much better practice.”
Cost compared to regular fluids.