Lowest Total Cost of Ownership

Clean Fuel Systems™ are patented and engineered to eliminate all fuel-related risks and clean your diesel fuel continuously through an approach we call Total Fuel Management. This approach uses the highly efficient and effective Clean Fuel System™ to optimize fuel system quality and cleaning while guaranteeing minimal operational cost and ensuring environmental protection and regulatory compliance in mission critical power environments.

Data center operators and facility managers use ESI’s Total Fuel Management approach to protect customer investments, maximize uptime, and eliminate downtime due to fuel-related threats. Using large-scale, facility-engineered Clean Fuel Systems™ as a platform for secure fuel, facility managers and data center operators eliminate massive amounts of maintenance, operating cost and risks associated with diesel fuel system-related failures; they also protect their brand.

ESI Clean Fuel Systems™ and Total Fuel Management:



Clean Fuel Systems™ are the most resilient bulk diesel fuel filtration systems available, utilizing pleated media filtration with coalescing and separation filters that allow for separation of free and emulsified water while maintaining high flow capacity. This technology is superior to antiquated, legacy technology that uses a combination of costly “absorbing” filters and toxic additives. In fact, we engineered Clean Fuel System™ as a superior alternative to the multi-vendor, patch-work approaches that do nothing to eliminate the many causes of failure in the fuel system. ESI’s technology helps eliminate the need for expensive, time-intensive and environmentally toxic filter changes, which could add up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating expense or damaged fuel (see cost comparison chart below).

Clean Fuel Systems™ are volume-based and include a highly accurate, positive displacement flow meter, ensuring the complete filtration of the stored fuel through volume controlled operations, as well as safe fuel transfer processes. This technology enables a defect-free diesel fuel system platform that minimizes costs associated with operating the system normally or in catastrophic recovery mode. A completely encapsulated, filtered fuel disposal process also eliminates toxic risks to humans, the facility, and the environment, as well as reducing the number of filters in landfills.

Value of Stored Fuel

Total Storage Capacity 90% Full Fuel Cost/gal Value of Stored Fuel Investment to Protect
60,000 gallons 54,000 gallons $3.37/gal* $182,000

*Avg. U.S. December 2010

Cost of Downtime (Cost of downtime per hour across key segments)

Industry Cost
Brokerage $6M – $8M
Data Centers $2.5M – $7M
Financial Institutions $1M – $20M
Healthcare $600k – $1.6M


A critical factor when evaluating bulk fuel filtration systems is the technology used for removal of free and emulsified water. Correctly designed bulk filtration systems should include pleated media filtration with coalescing and separation filters that allow for separation of free and emulsified water while maintaining high flow capacity. Water absorption technology, e.g. “spin-on” type canisters, often used by competitor systems, is not suited for bulk filtration and is most appropriately used in final fueling applications (e.g., on-site fueling, retail gas stations and aircraft fueling). One of the concerns in the use of absorption filters is the variability in flow rates. As a water absorption filter becomes saturated, the flow rate through that filter decreases dramatically, therefore the flow is not ratable or consistent.

Compounding the risks to your fuel system and engines are “time-based” flow cycles (an “assumed” flow rate with no flow meter) vs. volume-based with an accurately measured (flow metered) filtration cycle. Because the actual flow rate with absorption filters declines as a filter absorbs water, an assumed flow rate is an inaccurate measurement of the actual fuel filtered. The result is inadequate filtration of the fuel in the storage tank, compromising the intended design purpose of the filtration system.

Another consideration associated with the use of water absorbing filters is their significantly higher operational cost. The spin-on filters often used on competitors’ systems become fully saturated and need replacement after absorbing approximately ½ gallon of water. The result is unnecessary labor and materials cost, because the spin-on filter elements are a highly consumable part in this application. The operational cost impact when using water absorbing filters in a bulk filtration system is significant. For example, 0.25% water is a small percentage, but in two 50,000 gallon storage tanks this equates to 125 gallons of water per tank for a total of 250 gallons. To remove 250 gallons of water with absorption filters, which absorb ¼ gallon each, would require approximately 500 filter set changes (2 per set) at $100 per change for a total of $50,000. It is not uncommon for this amount of water to be removed from two 50,000 gallon underground storage tanks on a yearly basis. In additional to the high cost, this approach also includes a significant environmental impact associated with the disposal of 1,000 used filter elements.

By comparison, the coalescing and separation filters separate water into the filter vessel’s sump; a process that does not consume filter elements. When the volume of separated water in the sump reaches approximately 4 gallons, an automatic integrated process drains the water from the sump into a connected 55-gallon drum. The system monitors the water level in the drum and an alarm indicates when the drum is full. The reusable drum is designed to be pumped empty by an appropriate waste disposal company, e.g. Safety-Kleen®, and then put back into continued service.

The following cost analysis is a representation that compares these two approaches to water removal from the fuel storage tank. This chart assumes 250 gallons of water is filtered out per year (0.25 % of tank capacity).