Biofuel Timebomb for older cars.

[Dr Who]

why would it wreck the fuel as a whole.
It's very similar to lead which was a lubricant and so you got added wear without it.

No it isn't the same, it makes a difference to the fuels performance, dropping engine performance and costing you in fuel economy as it has a lower calorific value. (just ignoring the potential damage right now).

Lead was there as a lubricant, adding ethanol really isn't much different to adding cereal to a pork sausage, it makes the meat go further for the supplier but ultimately leaves you with less pork and less taste. More profit for a lesser product.

 

[Glaucus]

Your assuming ethanol is cheaper than petrol. Is that the case?

This again hasn't got anything to do with voters or fuel companies. This isn't a campaign by fuel companies.

 

[Dr Who]

t's just pumps will start appearing next year and the name change hasn't been agreed.

You miss the point, this is just an adjustment to 95 ron unleaded, it is not a new fuel to be sold at an extra pump, petrol statiuons will wholesale stop selling 5% ethanl fuel and replace it with 10% ethanol fuel which has a marked increase in risks and damage to economy.

When unleaded changed there were new pumps, old pumps with some 4 star and newer pumps with LRP, this time there will be no change to the pumps, there will be no required standard to put an additive in to protect older evhicles, and people will not be informed, just like when they started adding 5% ethanol.

 

[Glaucus]

Why are you suddenly going through and sprouting crap.

It's a new fuel e10 it is not a wholesale switch it is being phased in. Tesco as shown is not switching its high octane.

You didn't know there was additives now you are saying they won't be used.
Just stop.

Already named one standard although I don't know if it's enforced.
It has not been decided to allow no name change.

 

[DAnDan]

You miss the point, this is just an adjustment to 95 ron unleaded, it is not a new fuel to be sold at an extra pump, petrol statiuons will wholesale stop selling 5% ethanl fuel and replace it with 10% ethanol fuel which has a marked increase in risks and damage to economy.

When unleaded changed there were new pumps, old pumps with some 4 star and newer pumps with LRP, this time there will be no change to the pumps, there will be no required standard to put an additive in to protect older evhicles, and people will not be informed, just like when they started adding 5% ethanol.

There wasn't a wide notice put out with 5% ethanol as there wasn't a need to.

Got any links to analysis done on the "damage to economy" of 10% ethanol fuel btw?

 

[Dr Who]

Your assuming ethanol is cheaper than petrol. Is that the case?

This again hasn't got anything to do with voters or fuel companies. This isn't a campaign by fuel companies.

Ok, lets assume for the moment I am assuming, what other possible reason would a fuel company have for wanting to sell 10% ethanol fuel which has a lower calorific value, has higher carbon emmisions, and less fuel economy.

The only reason I can think of is that by forcing fuel economy down they will sell more fuel, what reasons can you think of for adding it?

Now ethanol fuel creates acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) which is a known carcinogen and suspected neurotoxin, the end result being that this fuel could well be a full circle back to the effects of lead in fuel.

The oxygenating value of Ethanol can lower some harmful gases, but mainly is is used as a packer to make up for the loss of MTBE, rather than fill that gap with fuel, why would they do this unless Ethanol was cheaper?

5% ethanol gives about a 2.5% reduction in MPG and 10% will be about 5% reduction in MPG, resulting in burning more fuel (more profit and tax income) with an increased cost to the motorist with no discernible world wide reduction in emmissions.

 

[Glaucus]

Ok, lets assume for the moment I am assuming, what other possible reason would a fuel company have for wanting to sell 10% ethanol fuel which has a lower calorific value, has higher carbon emmisions, and less fuel economy.

.

Becuase it's becoming law.

This is not a fuel company campaign, it is a eu one.
Your whole argument goes out the window.

 

[Dr Who]

Why are you suddenly going through and sprouting crap.

Crap, you mean countering your posts that demonstrates no actual facts or knowledge other than "it is just like leaded fuel changes"?

I didn't have a chance to read all your post earlier as I was playing SWTOR, now I have the time. But sure, say I am spouting crap, insults are the last resort of a weak mind.

DAndan http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/ethanol-health-impacts.html is the Australian reserch into the affects of Bioethanol on health and driving.

There is a lot of it, doubt you will want to read it all

 

[Glaucus]

You seem to miss the point at no point have I said its better or greener.

And crap about additives and the crap about a advertising campaign when they haven't agreed the rules, or the crap about it being the fuel companies and not EU.

No you are clearly missing the point and are not countering the arguments at all.

 

[Dr Who]

Becuase it's becoming law.

This is not a fuel company campaign, it is a eu one.
Your whole argument goes out the window.

Oh yeah silly me, the EU came up with this all on their own without any lobbying involved at all.

 

[Glaucus]

Oh yeah silly me, the EU came up with this all on their own without any lobbying involved at all.

It's all part of the 2020 energy road map.

It is not just fuel, it's energy as a whole. Not just petrol companies. It affects everything.
Is the banning of normal lightbulbs part of energy companies evil plans?
Is it the evil petrol companies forcing electric companies to build renewable energies?
Is it the evil petrol companies forcing electric EV charge points?
Is it the evil fuel compa is forcing new houses to include local renewable energy creation?
So yes silly you.

The big plan is to have 80% of vehicles electric by 2050 and to reduce co2 emmisions from everything excluding air travel to ~85% of pre 1990 levels.

These plans are really going to increase profits for power companies.

You are trying to counter arguments I have never made.

 

[Dr Who]

It's all part of the 2020 energy road map.

It is not just fuel, it's energy as a whole. Not just petrol companies. It affects everything.
Is the banning of normal lightbulbs part of energy companies evil plans?
So yes silly you.

The big plan is to have 80% of vehicles electric by 2050 and to reduce co2 emmisions from everything excluding air travel to ~85% of pre 1990 levels.

There is a massive difference between changes to lightbulbs, all of which in my house are energy saving, to the changes to fuel. Govts do not just come up with these ideas out of a hat like "oh lets increase ethanol in fuel to lower emmisions and price corn out of the reach of starving millions" they get lobbied by "experts" and corporations who help them decide policy.

This is as deluded as making more wind farms so you can say you have 10% renewable energy and still running all the power stations at the original levels because the wind farms are so unreliable.

It is a false green policy, unlike the changes to energy saving lightbulbs. It sounds very much like the read the green agenda, but actually have zero clue of how it works in reality. I am all in favour of REAL green initiatives, this is just a smokescreen, and a toxic one at that.

 

[Glaucus]

You need to read up on what is planned and what is happening.
Wind farms are currently inefficient as the grid isn't designed for them. That is being upgrade as we speak.

The corn in America for example isn't human feed corn anyway.
There's huge problems depending where it is sourced from.

There's also been breakthroughs in Agrofuel which is using waste farm products to produce it.

 

[Dr Who]

No, I know what is happening to the infrastructure, it won't change the fact that win is variable and unpredictable and does not coincide with peak demand, sure they will store some longer term, but that doesn't make them better than nuclear energy which is currently the best alternative. Anyway, so ar off topic it is irrelevant.

If they do a proper job on announcing the changes to fuel and provide legacy fuels with additives, no harm no foul, it remains to be seen, in the mean time, educating people about the harmful effects of ethanol helps to get this info out rather than stick heads in the sand and hope they come up with a viable solution.

 

[Dr Who]

The corn in America for example isn't human feed corn anyway.

You realise commodity prices are worldwide right?

 

[Glaucus]

You realise commodity prices are worldwide right?

Yes.

And wind may not be predictable, but it can be stored it can be used and you can downgrade other power plants. That is what will eventually happen.

It's better than nuclear becuase nuclear is massively expensive and unpopular. But again I have no issues with nuclear and think it should be used as well.

Your main problem is you think I'm some osrt of Eco warrior, I'm not and your arguments aren't against anything I've said,

If they do a proper job on announcing the changes to fuel and provide legacy fuels with additives, no harm no foul, it remains to be seen, in the mean time, educating people about the harmful effects of ethanol helps to get this info out rather than stick heads in the sand and hope they come up with a viable solution.

I agree with both points and again I haven't said otherwise, despite you claiming I have.
But they have come up with a hole host of viable and good solutions. It'll just take a few decades, where others like this as I said are pointless.

 

[Dr Who]

Your main problem is you think I'm some osrt of Eco warrior, I'm not and your arguments aren't against anything I've said,

No I don't I just think you are naive if you think this is a non-issue like unleaded when the effects are far more dangerous and it is so far, less well publicised, if you are right and it is a non-issue I will stand corrected, but for now, it looks like a problem in the making.

 

[phil675]

What about my k series engine? :/

 

[Glaucus]

No I don't I just think you are naive if you think this is a non-issue like unleaded when the effects are far more dangerous and it is so far, less well publicised, if you are right and it is a non-issue I will stand corrected, but for now, it looks like a problem in the making.

It hasn't been advertised becuase it hasn't been agreed (i cant see how anyone can draw any conclusion on that yet, it remains to be seen) So until its agreed we don't know how publicised it will be. It seems to be being advertised pretty well by variuse motor sites already.

Leaded was a massive issue and could kill engines as well without addatives. So it is very similar.

 

[Dogbreath]

It's very similar and I may well be affected as its going to be worse on old motorbikes than cars.

As a biker you really should know better then; have you not heard what ethanol has been doing to the plastic fuel tanks of some (mainly Italian) bikes?

Your argument that this is somehow similar to the introduction of unleaded fuel is completely fallacious.