Biofuel Timebomb for older cars.

[lordrobs]

What about those who have classic cars? It's a bit of a kick in the nuts for them.

But then who cares as long as we artificially brainwash people into buying new eco-crapboxes?

Interestingly I was browsing the customer comments bit on the Tesco site (slow day in the office ) and found this in response to someone who is running a classic at the moment-

Hi firebreak. Thanks for your comments. E10 is on the agenda for European Union member countries and this may become a must-do on unleaded 95 in the future. However, we plan to keep Momentum99 as a legacy grade so that older vehicles such as yours can continue to run.

So that kind of ties in with what I've read about super unleaded not being effected? Maybe?

 

[Tute]

Because they'll have a car that they can no longer buy fuel for?

[Edit] Ah, fair enough if they can just run SUL.

 

[Wizardskills]

Because classic car owners buy the car in question because they like that particular car. Generally it doesn't matter when it's phased out, they're going to be shafted in the end.

I saw this the other day on pistonheads and I a little concerned about how it will affect my GT6. Of course E10 will be phased in slowly so I don't think it will be too much of an issue to begin with. On the plus side it looks like there have already been some additives developed for it already

http://www.millersoils.net/1_Millers_frame_CLASSIC.htm

Not sure how well they will work though.

Hopefully the additives will work as I don't really want to be rebuilding my engine every 2 years.

 

[Glaucus]

So that kind of ties in with what I've read about super unleaded not being effected? Maybe?

it's optional, until 2020 when fuel will have to be e15, so it's up to companies what they supply and probably get tax incentives. E5 isn't going anywhere soon.

 

[Dr Who]

What's wrong with that?

Although I'm certainly not in the standard camp as they are just mental with no forward thinking, plans or sense. Which makes this scheme pointless, but we signed up so it has to be done. Be prepared for a load more like this and the normal lightbulb ban. We have signed up to lower energy consumption, co2 and increase effeciency. So more laws will be coming in as we get closer to the 2012 deadline.

A country with less carbon particulates, smog, heavy metals and noise is surly something everyone would like.

Except E10 doesn't achieve that, it has a higher carbon footprint to manufacture, except in areas where they cut down rainforrests to grow it (worse still) and it increases fuel consumption so increases CO2 output as well. Not to mention that the crops grown to produce it switch production away from food and this results in higher food prices for everyone, in particular thirsd world countries. All in all use of E10 is far from a solution, it is misguided green policy.

 

[Glaucus]

Except E10 doesn't achieve that, .

. Which makes this scheme pointless, but we signed up so it has to be done.

 

[[TW]Fox]

it's optional, until 2020 when fuel will have to be e15, so it's up to companies what they supply and probably get tax incentives. E5 isn't going anywhere soon.

As always you appear to have completely missed the point.

The point that the change being made is that currently, any fuel with more than 5% Ethanol must be marked. After the change, this will be 10%. Therefore, fuel companies can and will sell fuel with a 10% ethanol content and you will have NO idea which fuel includes it and which doesn't if the garage has not labelled the pumps, which they wont be required to do. This is problematic for cars which are not compatible with it.

You seem to post lots and lots in debates like this but never really seem to say much. It seems your point has now morphed into 'Yea but we signed up so it has to be done'. Well done there Captain Obvious

 

[Glaucus]

As always you appear to have completely missed the point.

The point that the change being made is that currently, any fuel with more than 5% Ethanol must be marked. After the change, this will be 10%. Therefore, fuel companies can and will sell fuel with a 10% ethanol content and you will have NO idea which fuel includes it and which doesn't if the garage has not labelled the pumps, which they wont be required to do. This is problematic for cars which are not compatible with it.

I haven't missed the point, the name change is under discussion.
Even if passed, you can find out what fuel they use, they are unlikely to withhold that info and if they do you buy else where.
Already said all that.

The we signed upto it, I said once. And is a different point responding to someone else's different point.

Most of my argument has been this has happened before it wasn't a massive issues and there's things you can do.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So you've no idea, in other words? You've not addressed any of the concerns this thread was about.

Your point is now 'Oh but you might be able to ask and they may know'. Yea, how handy. Because having to walk into the office every time and hope the minimum wage assistant knows the Ethanol content of the fuel is a highly acceptable and reasonable situation, yea?

And they wont be obligated to tell you anyway!

Surely you can see how this is a big issue for some people? It doesn't affect me so I don't care, but I can see how it's a problem for others.

Most of my argument has been this has happened before it wasn't a massive issues and there's things you can do.

It hasn't happened before - the change from leaded petrol to unleaded was clearly marked, widely known about and the subject of much advertising. It is not the same thing at all.

 

[Glaucus]

So you've no idea, in other words? You've not addressed any of the concerns this thread was about.

Have you even read the thread. See the point where I actually went and found out about additives. See where I pointed out that it isn't forced or 100%. So is still avilable.

But I guess you like missing the points and concentrate on crusades.

It hasn't been agreed yet, so why would there be advising. It is under discussion.

Or like when leaded was phased out, certain companies said all our garages will still have leaded pumps up until the ban, so you choose to go there.

This is also assuming that the fuel does not have addatives in, which I am not convinced about. I think it's fairly likely these addatives will be pre mixed.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Have you even read the thread. See the point where I actually went and found out about additives. See where I pointed out that it isn't forced or 100%. So is still avilable.

And again you miss the point.

The point is the change in naming convention. You won't KNOW whether the unleaded fuel you are buying is 10% or 5% Ethanol. There will be no legal obligation for the retailer to label 10% Ethanol as such, just as now there is no legal obligation for 5% Ethanol to be labelled as such. How do you know whether to go elsewhere without knowing what the garage you are stood in is actually selling to you in terms of ethanol content? How do you know where to go instead?

This is the problem. The problem isn't the change to 10%, the problem is the change in the naming regulations meaning that you wont know what you are buying.

 

[Glaucus]

The point is the change in naming convention. .

It is under discussion, it has not been passed

To marry-up with the changes, the Department for Transport is currently considering downgrading the wording on biofuels so that only that with a greater than 10 per cent mix will have to be labelled with the words "This fuel contains more than 10 per cent biofuel

You will know if you bother to find out before hand, just like leaded. You could find out who still supplies it.

Again said all this in the first page.

 

[[TW]Fox]

We are discussing the consideration.

 

[Glaucus]

We are discussing the consideration.

People weren't on the first page and so.

They were saying that it was enforced, no options and no additives.

Perhaps try following the thread.

Was this not clear, very early on. But you must have missed it

Also it's not a done deal, the department is looking at changing the rules on naming and it doesn't mean all companies won't let you know. So you might for the next few years buy at certain per petrol stations that either name or let you know on the website.
.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's part of the story, a possibility, and therefore worthy of discussion.

 

[Glaucus]

It's part of the story, a possibility, and therefore worthy of discussion.

I didn't say otherwise.

I was telling what I've read as the real story and not jumping to conclusions like most people. Especially the no additive bits.

 

[Dr Who]

I didn't say otherwise.

I was telling what I've read as the real story and not jumping to conclusions like most people. Especially the no additive bits.

Well you have jumped to conclusions, the conclusion you stated were that it was good for the green agenda, when really, it is only any good for fuel companies who can stick 10% ethanol in their fuel, causing increased MPG and higher worldwide carbon emmisions whilst saving them money. This 10% biofuel is nothing more than fuel company lobbying with misinformation that this is a good thing, and sucker govts believing it because they WANT to hear a green agenda. Sure the crops grown consume some CO2 but nothing like what the trees in the rainforest would have consumed had they not been cut down to make sapce for biofuel crops.

There is NOTHING good about the change to increased levels of ethanol for the general public, it reduces MPG and releases harmful chemicals into their engine,, which may or may not be safe depending on the engine and there will likely be no way to tell how much ethanol is in your fuel as it will not be labeled. The first time you find out is when your garage tells you your engine is fubared due to ethanol in the fuel and provides you with a bill roughly equivalent to the increased profit the fuel companies have made on your fuel.

 

[Glaucus]

Well you have jumped to conclusions, the conclusion you stated were that it was good for the green agenda, .

no I didnt, not once have I said its a good green policy. I don't why you have repeated yourself. Seeing as I quoted what I said last time you said that.

. Which makes this scheme pointless, but we signed up so it has to be done.

I also never said it was good for the public, I said it is what we have agreed to do, so it's going to come in and that all this bandwagon stuff is nonsense and really it is a non issue, other than a little inconvience.

So there's no way to looka nd ask tesco what is in their fuel and they refuse to respond? Yes bandwagon. You know about it and you can find out. You don't have to wait for a broken engine and that's assuming additives aren't pre mixed.

 

[Dr Who]

Sure I know about it, what about the hundreds of thousands of non-petrolhead drivers that have no clue what is going on? Will they be able to ask? how will they find out what damage is being done?

Stuff like this gets "signed up to" as you put it due to the ignorance and of the voters and misinformation provided to govts by fuel companies. It should not just be done as it has no tangible benefits to ANYONE bar the fuel companies. If you want to ignore it, then fine, but you cannot say it is all ok and will be just like unleaded as that was whased in over years, LRP was widely avaialble, and there was LOTS of public information about unleaded and the evils of tetraethyl lead, this is being done in a stealthy fashion without enough information on hand for people to make safe and sensible decisions about what fuel they use.

 

[Glaucus]

Sure I know about it, what about the hundreds of thousands of non-petrolhead drivers that have no clue what is going on? Will they be able to ask? how will they find out what damage is being done?

.

Well they aren't going to advertise when a descions hasn't be made, are they. We will have to wait and see for that bit.

You have jumped on the bandwagon and still don't seem to understand its under consideration. It hasn't been passed.

If it passes, addatives aren't mandatory and there's no advertising campaign. I will agree with you.

What benefit does it have for the fuel companies?
What voters are misinformed and agreed to it?
It is an eu agreement, nothing to do with voters.