RE: Government ponders E10 petrol for 2021
Discussion
unsprung said:
"Using ethanol as a vehicle fuel has measurable GHG emissions benefits when considering the life cycle steps required for gasoline."
"Depending on the feedstock, emissions reductions of cellulosic ethanol compared to conventional gasoline range from 51% to 88%..."
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emi...
Yes, when compared volume for volume."Depending on the feedstock, emissions reductions of cellulosic ethanol compared to conventional gasoline range from 51% to 88%..."
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emi...
These quotes do not consider that a greater volume is burned per unit distance travelled. These quotes also muddy the waters by introducung additional variables outside of the scope of the original discussion.
You can spin it how you want it but the reality is that you use more fuel to cover less distance. Burning more fuel to cover less distance is categorically not 'greener'
Olas said:
Yes, when compared volume for volume.
These quotes do not consider that a greater volume is burned per unit distance travelled. These quotes also muddy the waters by introducung additional variables outside of the scope of the original discussion.
You can spin it how you want it but the reality is that you use more fuel to cover less distance. Burning more fuel to cover less distance is categorically not 'greener'
I could be wrong, but it seems they're talking not about a fixed unit (say: one litre of "pure" petrol v one litre of E10), but about the full life-cycle of the two fuel types --- "full" to include that ethanol contains about 30 percent less energy and must be burned in greater quantity than the equivalent "pure" petrol.These quotes do not consider that a greater volume is burned per unit distance travelled. These quotes also muddy the waters by introducung additional variables outside of the scope of the original discussion.
You can spin it how you want it but the reality is that you use more fuel to cover less distance. Burning more fuel to cover less distance is categorically not 'greener'
We on PH would not be the first to discover some ruse in this switch to E10, if there indeed was some sleight of hand or no improvement in real-world applications.
Amateurs!
you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
ok - it is not going to fully offset the loss due to electrification, but the timing is perfect as the wave of electrification starts.
Then as we move along with increased EV sales in the next couple of years, we get non domestic electric power consumption tax for all the street/ fuel station/ motorway services/ supermarket charging + road pricing/mile to fully offset the loss of 85p+/ltr current tax revenue.
With all councils starting to give out tenders for roadside charging, all fuel and service stations on the way to setting up fast charging & EV being close to 100% location tracking with data sharing capabilities, all of the above are easy to do.
In fact, you would be stupid as a government not to do this! free money with added planet saving votes! If i was PM i would ride this horsey all the way to the bank for decades to come!
The government always takes your cash...everything you hear is all about that! save the planet my arse!
you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
ok - it is not going to fully offset the loss due to electrification, but the timing is perfect as the wave of electrification starts.
Then as we move along with increased EV sales in the next couple of years, we get non domestic electric power consumption tax for all the street/ fuel station/ motorway services/ supermarket charging + road pricing/mile to fully offset the loss of 85p+/ltr current tax revenue.
With all councils starting to give out tenders for roadside charging, all fuel and service stations on the way to setting up fast charging & EV being close to 100% location tracking with data sharing capabilities, all of the above are easy to do.
In fact, you would be stupid as a government not to do this! free money with added planet saving votes! If i was PM i would ride this horsey all the way to the bank for decades to come!
The government always takes your cash...everything you hear is all about that! save the planet my arse!
bobbylondonuk said:
Amateurs!
you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
Not all countries levy a high tax on petrol. you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
So, for example, while you may believe that boosting government earnings is behind the switch to E10 in the UK, this was probably not the justification in the US when it switched years ago.
Doesn't bother me. I don't see e10 as a massive issue for any modernish car, and any car that it does cause a problem for is likely not to so many miles so running super is not a dealbreaker.
Also, you'll be paying more for the super but with E10 as regular, now you'll actually be getting better mileage due to the higher energy density, so you're really getting more for your money.
In any case both my cars use super so even if not compatible it doesn't affect me
Also, you'll be paying more for the super but with E10 as regular, now you'll actually be getting better mileage due to the higher energy density, so you're really getting more for your money.
In any case both my cars use super so even if not compatible it doesn't affect me
Olas said:
Any fuel line you may have bought in the last 20 years is perfectly appropriate.
It will be stamped with SAE J30R9. Buy it from Moss or Halfords or Ebay for cheap.
My personal experience says otherwise. Replaced all hoses on my 61 mini about 8 years ago with hose bought from reputable online supplier which was not R9 marked. Then had to replace them again 3 years ago as one had started leaking and the others were perished (softened rubber with micro-cracks). I now only buy R9 labelled hose. Good info in this article (http://www.volksbolts.com/faq/fuelhose.htm) on what the issue is along with link to a Qinetiq report.It will be stamped with SAE J30R9. Buy it from Moss or Halfords or Ebay for cheap.
My concern is not for my cars, rather for others not aware.
DavidJJ said:
That's annoying, my 2007 IS250 falls foul of this, therefore offsetting the saving I was going to make from having less days in the office and therefore less of a commute!
Is there a specific part that is affected e.g. fuel hose? Probably lots of older Lexii running in E10 in Europe without issue.RSTurboPaul said:
There are a couple of threads on here covering that Esso Super Unleaded is ethanol free.
Only in some regionshttps://www.esso.co.uk/en-gb/fuels-faqs
Yodafone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
There are a couple of threads on here covering that Esso Super Unleaded is ethanol free.
Only in some regionshttps://www.esso.co.uk/en-gb/fuels-faqs
Esso said:
Esso super unleaded petrol (Synergy Supreme+ Unleaded 97 and Synergy Supreme+ 99 ) is ethanol free (Except in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland).
We would therefore advise anyone who has concerns about the presence of ethanol in petrol to use Synergy Supreme+ – providing they do not fill up in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland.
The European standard BS EN228 covers the requirements for 0-5% ethanol unleaded petrol, the labelling requirement for zero % ethanol is E5 (as is up to 5%), a E0 label doesn’t exist.
We would therefore advise anyone who has concerns about the presence of ethanol in petrol to use Synergy Supreme+ – providing they do not fill up in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland.
The European standard BS EN228 covers the requirements for 0-5% ethanol unleaded petrol, the labelling requirement for zero % ethanol is E5 (as is up to 5%), a E0 label doesn’t exist.
bobbylondonuk said:
Amateurs!
you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
ok - it is not going to fully offset the loss due to electrification, but the timing is perfect as the wave of electrification starts.
Then as we move along with increased EV sales in the next couple of years, we get non domestic electric power consumption tax for all the street/ fuel station/ motorway services/ supermarket charging + road pricing/mile to fully offset the loss of 85p+/ltr current tax revenue.
With all councils starting to give out tenders for roadside charging, all fuel and service stations on the way to setting up fast charging & EV being close to 100% location tracking with data sharing capabilities, all of the above are easy to do.
In fact, you would be stupid as a government not to do this! free money with added planet saving votes! If i was PM i would ride this horsey all the way to the bank for decades to come!
The government always takes your cash...everything you hear is all about that! save the planet my arse!
E10 requires 2% more fuel flow to achieve Lambda 1.00 than E5. They will lose a hell of a lot more tax income than 2% from the switch to Electric cars.you think this is about save the planet crap?
E10 = less efficient fuel mixture = more litres consumed = 85p+/ltr tax revenue generated on increased consumption = tax revenue offset against reduced consumption due to electrification.
ok - it is not going to fully offset the loss due to electrification, but the timing is perfect as the wave of electrification starts.
Then as we move along with increased EV sales in the next couple of years, we get non domestic electric power consumption tax for all the street/ fuel station/ motorway services/ supermarket charging + road pricing/mile to fully offset the loss of 85p+/ltr current tax revenue.
With all councils starting to give out tenders for roadside charging, all fuel and service stations on the way to setting up fast charging & EV being close to 100% location tracking with data sharing capabilities, all of the above are easy to do.
In fact, you would be stupid as a government not to do this! free money with added planet saving votes! If i was PM i would ride this horsey all the way to the bank for decades to come!
The government always takes your cash...everything you hear is all about that! save the planet my arse!
fido said:
DavidJJ said:
That's annoying, my 2007 IS250 falls foul of this, therefore offsetting the saving I was going to make from having less days in the office and therefore less of a commute!
Is there a specific part that is affected e.g. fuel hose? Probably lots of older Lexii running in E10 in Europe without issue.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff