E10 petrol

[RogerL]

Makes you wonder if adding the extra bio is an environmentally friendly idea as over a year surely the impact would be the same as if using the E5 as you have to use a bit more E10 fuel? The only organisation that benefits is the government as that extra fuel could rake in a lot of extra money due to duty and taxes an dnothing to do with being environmentally friendly. Lucky for us the petrol vehicle is only used as a town car and did less than 2000 miles last year.

The government won't make much out of me - our petrol car does less than 1,000 miles/year but does avoid all the short journeys for our big diesel, minimising the risk of DPF blockage.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Makes you wonder if adding the extra bio is an environmentally friendly idea as over a year surely the impact would be the same as if using the E5 as you have to use a bit more E10 fuel? The only organisation that benefits is the government as that extra fuel could rake in a lot of extra money due to duty and taxes an dnothing to do with being environmentally friendly. Lucky for us the petrol vehicle is only used as a town car and did less than 2000 miles last year.

That's a very negative and consiprtal perspective, and seems to based on a misconception.

As I explained above and others have also commented the difference in the chemical energy of the fuel will be masked by so many other factors the difference will not be noticed by the vast majority of motorists. So fuel consumption as a result of changing to E10 will barely change. What does change is the proportion of renewable vs non renwalable emissions improves.

The Gov't says:-
"The introduction of E10 petrol at UK forecourts could cut transport CO2 emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year – the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars off the road, or all the cars in North Yorkshire."

E10 petrol explained

Learn about the benefits of E10 petrol and use our vehicle checker to confirm whether your vehicle is compatible with E10.

www.gov.uk

Strictly speaking the ACTUAL emissions from vehicles will not drop, but the the figure represents the reduction in the release of new CO2 from burning fossil fuel which presently adds that much more CO2 to the atmosphere.

So on the basis that fuel consumption isn't going to rise dramatically, the Gov't isn't going to make a lot more tax income becasue fuel tax is a fixed rate per litre. Ony the VAt migt rise when fuel prices rise. To counter that we must also factor in the move towards EV's so the total sales of petroleum is most likely to decrease progressively as we move into the new era.

 

[otherclive]

I can’t recall such a level of misgivings when E5 was introduce.. Certainly there were recommendations that some older cars and other petrol engines might not be suited to E5, but the move to E10 really does seem to have got the media and others quite stirred up.

 

[otherclive]

I can’t recall such a level of misgivings when E5 was introduce.. Certainly there were recommendations that some older cars and other petrol engines might not be suited to E5, but the move to E10 really does seem to have got the media and others quite stirred up.

Here is an interesting paper on HMGs consultations prior to finalising the move to E10. It even benefits to farmers by making us more self reliant on home produced animal feed. !!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...g-e10-petrol-outcome-and-summary-of-responses

 

[Lutz]

It is commonly stated that Bioethanol only has about 66% of the chemical energy of pure petroleum (100%). E5 has 5% Bioethanol, E10 has 10% Bioethanol

(95% x 1 + 5% x 0.66) = (95 + 3.3)% = 98.3% or a loss of 1.7%
(90% x 1 + 10% x0.66) =(90 + 6.6)% = 96.6% or a loss of 3.4%

Where it might become noticable is where a car is being driven on a track where peak power is frequently called for. It will affect 0 to 60 times and ultimate top speeds.

In most cases you will not notice this loss of energy becasue it will most likely be swamped out by other driving conditions, such as the number of passengers, or how long you are slow or stationary due to congestion.

As both E5 and E10 are sold alongside each other here, it is fairly easy to make a meaningful comparison. I find that if the difference in price is more than 4 cents a litre, it's worthwhile filling up with E10. Currently, the difference is 6 cents.

 

[Buckman]

As both E5 and E10 are sold alongside each other here, it is fairly easy to make a meaningful comparison. I find that if the difference in price is more than 4 cents a litre, it's worthwhile filling up with E10. Currently, the difference is 6 cents.

Not in the UK as price seems to have increased? Paid £1.36 yesterday per litre.

 

[arob.wk]

All I know is that I will not be putting unadulterated E10 into my refurbished (soon-to-be operational-once-more) vintage Howard rotavator. Not sure yet whether to risk premium E5 or go for removing the ethanol altogether (with the associated faff and wasted money spent on the ethanol content!).

Have started looking into fuel additives to help counteract the corrosive effect of ethanol - any thoughts about additives anyone ?

On another forum, it was suggested to me that the removed ethanol/water mix makes for a good cleaner/de-greaser/sanitiser ! As I would expect some residual petrol contamination in the mix, I would personally be cautious about its use except as a "work-shop" de-greaser.

 

[Raywood]

From what I have read the addition of the ethanol does reduce emissions but increases fuel usage by about 1% so you are unlikely to see the increase. The idea seems to be an American one so that the prairie farmers can sell more produce to be converted to ethanol but an independent American report suggested that there is little or no benefit as the impact of the processing and transport more or less cancels out the benefits and indeed if more forests are cut down to produce the crops it could have a negative effect. Not sure if anyone on here has the technical knowledge to say if this is correct.

 

[Beachball]

The same mileage as if she had put in the previous E5 95 RON. Any difference would only show up in controlled tests.

Next time she might put E5 95 Ron but at the petrol station visited they did not have any in stock .

 

[otherclive]

Next time she might put E5 95 Ron but at the petrol station visited they did not have any in stock .

You can’t get E95 RON now unless the tanks haven’t been filled., but you wouldn’t be aware of it as the pumps and nozzles will have been relabelled E10 anyway. The two petrols available are E10 95 RON, or E5 97+RON. E10 has now become the standard petrol and E5 is the more expensive premium fuel. I’m not surprised the fuel station didn’t have any in stock as the filler nozzles and pumps have been being relabelled in advance of the new E10 being formally introduced at the beginning of this month.

 

[Beachball]

You can’t get E95 RON now unless the tanks haven’t been filled., but you wouldn’t be aware of it as the pumps and nozzles will have been relabelled E10 anyway. The two petrols available are E10 95 RON, or E5 97+RON. E10 has now become the standard petrol and E5 is the more expensive premium fuel. I’m not surprised the fuel station didn’t have any in stock as the filler nozzles and pumps have been being relabelled in advance of the new E10 being formally introduced at the beginning of this month.

otherclive my wife just looks at what is unleaded and at that time it E10 95RON sticker on it so she just filled it up probably the first time in twenty years i normally do it for her . but thanks for the information

 

[otherclive]

otherclive my wife just looks at what is unleaded and at that time it E10 95RON sticker on it so she just filled it up probably the first time in twenty years i normally do it for her . but thanks for the information

Crikey BB haven’t you told your wife yet that all petrol has been unleaded for yonks. What other secrets are you hiding from her? 🤭🤭🤭

 

[RogerL]

otherclive my wife just looks at what is unleaded and at that time it E10 95RON sticker on it so she just filled it up probably the first time in twenty years i normally do it for her . but thanks for the information

You let your wife refuel the car? Couple of my friends did that and their wives put petrol in diesel cars !

 

[Buckman]

From what I have read the addition of the ethanol does reduce emissions but increases fuel usage by about 1% so you are unlikely to see the increase. The idea seems to be an American one so that the prairie farmers can sell more produce to be converted to ethanol but an independent American report suggested that there is little or no benefit as the impact of the processing and transport more or less cancels out the benefits and indeed if more forests are cut down to produce the crops it could have a negative effect. Not sure if anyone on here has the technical knowledge to say if this is correct.

Sounds about right.

You let your wife refuel the car? Couple of my friends did that and their wives put petrol in diesel cars !

My wife always fills up the Jeep or her car no issues. Says I take too long fiddling around. Then she has to wait for me to go in and pay.

 

[otherclive]

From what I have read the addition of the ethanol does reduce emissions but increases fuel usage by about 1% so you are unlikely to see the increase. The idea seems to be an American one so that the prairie farmers can sell more produce to be converted to ethanol but an independent American report suggested that there is little or no benefit as the impact of the processing and transport more or less cancels out the benefits and indeed if more forests are cut down to produce the crops it could have a negative effect. Not sure if anyone on here has the technical knowledge to say if this is correct.

It wasn’t the US farmers, Brazil have been using cane derived ethanol many years, at far more than 10%.

In 2006 Saab introduced the 9-5 Biofuel. It could run on any fuel mix from petrol to 85% ethanol. But it wasn’t a good seller as bioethanol outlets in Europe and USA were as rare as hen’s teeth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan...t vehicles in Brazil running on pure gasoline.

 

[Beachball]

You let your wife refuel the car? Couple of my friends did that and their wives put petrol in diesel cars !

Hi Roger my wife does know what petrol looks like

 

[otherclive]

Sounds about right.



My wife always fills up the Jeep or her car no issues. Says I take too long fiddling around. Then she has to wait for me to go in and pay.

We do it the other way around. I fuel it, madame pays for it. She even fueled her own car twice this month. That was a first, but did admit to forgetting which side the filler cap was. Fortunately it’s not that large so the fuelling pipe reached the nearside. I then told her that in my experience all cars tell you which side the fuelling port is. “ it’s in that area of plastic and plexiglass called a dashboard Dear” says I then wandering off into the garage.

 

[ProfJohnL]

From what I have read the addition of the ethanol does reduce emissions ....

No it doesn't reduce emissions. The same car fueled with e5 or e10 or any e number will still produce near enough the same quantities of CO, CO2 and other products of combustion. That is a fact that applies whenever a carbon based fuel is burnt.

I believe there is lot of misunderstanding about the Carbon cycle and the part that Bioethanol might help to manage global warming.

In the short term moving to bioethanol produces a recycle time of a couple of years for the burning of bioethanol which converts Carbon to CO2 to the plant life used to produce the fuel to grab the CO2 back from atmosphere.

So in real terms using Bioethanol doe not massively reduce the overall level of CO2 in atmosphere, but it does not increase it either. It's a stabilising tactic not a reducer. But we shouldn't dismiss it, as by not adding any new CO2 we are reducing the strain on Mother Nature

We still need to do more. Conversion to Bioethanol if it reduces New CO2 being released is clearly a good thing, but it also does not address the underlying demand for high grade energy. It would be far better to reduce the numbers of driven miles across the board and other high fuel uses. If nothing else the Covid pandemic has shown that a lot of transport mileage is actually unnecessary.

 

[RogerL]

No it doesn't reduce emissions. The same car fueled with e5 or e10 or any e number will still produce near enough the same quantities of CO, CO2 and other products of combustion. That is a fact that applies whenever a carbon based fuel is burnt.

I believe there is lot of misunderstanding about the Carbon cycle and the part that Bioethanol might help to manage global warming.

In the short term moving to bioethanol produces a recycle time of a couple of years for the burning of bioethanol which converts Carbon to CO2 to the plant life used to produce the fuel to grab the CO2 back from atmosphere.

So in real terms using Bioethanol doe not massively reduce the overall level of CO2 in atmosphere, but it does not increase it either. It's a stabilising tactic not a reducer. But we shouldn't dismiss it, as by not adding any new CO2 we are reducing the strain on Mother Nature

We still need to do more. Conversion to Bioethanol if it reduces New CO2 being released is clearly a good thing, but it also does not address the underlying demand for high grade energy. It would be far better to reduce the numbers of driven miles across the board and other high fuel uses. If nothing else the Covid pandemic has shown that a lot of transport mileage is actually unnecessary.

Bio fuels are only a good thing if seen in isolation - the bigger picture is that the world is short of food, or high on population, which means that more and more forest is being burnt to make way for food production which just increases the CO2 in the atmosphere - switching crops from food to fuel does nothing to change our CO2 output.

But neither politicians nor the media are ever interested in the big picture.

 

[Raywood]

Thanks Prof but you do not say if the processing needed to produce the ethanol negates the advantages. If it is coming from Brazil then it must mean destroying rainforest, and that surely is counterproductive.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do not know what the Brazillion's policy on forest removal is. That is a question you should put to their government. But I think your point is valid

I am not unfeeling towards the deforestation and the change it is making to the natural habitat of the area, and the effects on weather conditions. I do not condone the wholesale destruction.

You do need to look at the use the land is put to. and that is difficult sum to balance. If the land is used for producing plants with a high CO2 take up for turning into bio fuel , it might actually be better than the trees on that score, but I do not like wholesale destruction of forest, where there could be viable alternatives.

However, it is my understanding that almost any biomass waste can be processed to produce a usable fuel. I would expect different biomaterials might be better than others at producing high grade fuels like Bioethanol. There are already schemes in the UK that take farm waste, and produce gas that can be used for district heating, and ends up producing a great fertiliser which is also recycling the nitrates that would otherwise be lost.

 

[otherclive]

Ethanol can be produced from bio mass or by catalytic conversion of ethane.

https://www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomass/biofuels/bioethanol/