Are petrol stations having a laugh?

Thats N2O which is not NOx (x=1 or 2) which main source is agriculture soil, did you read beyond the title?

For EU6 emissions NOx max is 0.08g/km for NOx, most cars are what? 120-200g/km CO2. Order of magnitude different
 
Nasher said:
Pretty well proven science? Plants can deal with some Co2, nothing can deal ith NOX.
Click to expand...

I think its more to do with the troposphere and creating Ozone dioxides... Google could have probably done enough for you to recognise the nitric acid effect it has on cloud aswell, hence acid rain.

Note: Pollution control has never been about looking after plants.

EDIT:

I love this bit mainly for quotation. 'nothing can deal with NOX'

Quotes different compound yet article has following :
N₂O is destroyed in the upper atmosphere, primarily by solar radiation. But humans are emitting N₂O faster than it’s being destroyed, so it’s accumulating in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Cant make this stuff up :cry:

Well you can i guess, its happening on the Masher board.
 
Simon said:
Thats N2O which is not NOx (x=1 or 2) which main source is agriculture soil, did you read beyond the title?

For EU6 emissions NOx max is 0.08g/km for NOx, most cars are what? 120-200g/km CO2. Order of magnitude different
Click to expand...

Nox is also bad though, it's directly damaging to health too. It's far worse.

Co2 is just Co2, it's the amount we are making which is the problem not the gas itself. If we we were making loads of O2 or just water vapour bad things would happen.
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
They said they will review it in 5years to see if needs to stay as E5.




0.2 what? pence? 1.6% now? i thought it was 10% a while ago?

In those numbers there are other factors more likely to affect the treasury, like more working at home. A 1% increase in consumption is not the 10% people are claiming people can change their driving habits and get 10% better consumption, lets not blame the fuel.
Click to expand...

0.2 pence per litre.

I was being generous and using the govt's figures of 1.6% rather than motoring organisations who claim higher. Just to stop you picking on that point and ignoring the rest of the argument but somehow you still managed to pick on it again. :rolleyes:1.6% is 1.6%. You cant say if people change their driving habits they can save it. They could have changed before and saved that.

The DFT own assessment on E10 states the co2 savings are between 1-2% but the drop in fuel economy is 1-2% so basically unless people start driving more economically there wont be any co2 savings.

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

Yes working from home affects fuel tax revenue of course but using the same fuel usage, the Treasury will gain millions from this change alone which is why i said they should have given an incentive and dropped the tax slightly on e10 fuel. That was my point. There is no carrot, only stick.

Yet you seem to think that everybody paying more is an incentive............
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Nox is also bad though, it's directly damaging to health too. It's far worse.

Co2 is just Co2, it's the amount we are making which is the problem not the gas itself. If we we were making loads of O2 or just water vapour bad things would happen.
Click to expand...

Which is what I've been saying for years about diesels and people on about how hybrids were stupid...

In terms of local air pollution which is of course what us humans actual care about.
 
Greebo said:
Thats a perfectly valid point but a world of difference to some people claiming there is a carrot because the alternative costs more................
Click to expand...

An incentive to do something doesn't have to be positively encouraging, or as you say, a carrot. A stick is still an incentive, just not a nice one.

E10 being the cheapest available petrol, with the only alternative notably more expensive Super grades, is an incentive to make people use E10 and one that is likely expected to be vastly more effective than offering two cheaper grades of 95 but one slightly cheaper than the other.
 
Greebo said:
Thats a perfectly valid point but a world of difference to some people claiming there is a carrot because the alternative costs more................
Click to expand...
how do you move people to E10 if you bring out E5 for old cars next to it like LRP example.
Bit of a stupid policy if you did that.

0.2p is noise in petrol prices. i don't really get the pain here. the world. is changing, We had leaded, now E5, next E10. Deal with it to reduce our impact on the planet. If fuel prices upset you so much drive less, move to EV or do something else for a job.

To expect a price reduction on a fuel thats sold per litre based on some arbitrary googleing of mpg impact and energy density is deluded.
 
Kenai said:
An incentive to do something doesn't have to be positively encouraging, or as you say, a carrot. A stick is still an incentive, just not a nice one.

E10 being the cheapest available petrol, with the only alternative notably more expensive Super grades, is an incentive to make people use E10 and one that is likely expected to be vastly more effective than offering two cheaper grades of 95 but one slightly cheaper than the other.
Click to expand...
Very well put, i thought its was pretty obvious
 
Simon said:
how do you move people to E10 if you bring out E5 for old cars next to it like LRP example.
Bit of a stupid policy if you did that.

0.2p is noise in petrol prices. i don't really get the pain here. the world. is changing, We had leaded, now E5, next E10. Deal with it to reduce our impact on the planet. If fuel prices upset you so much drive less, move to EV or do something else for a job.

To expect a price reduction on a fuel thats sold per litre based on some arbitrary googleing of mpg impact and energy density is deluded.
Click to expand...

I was never suggesting you kept e5 like LRP. I was pointing it it would have been nice to give an incentive for people to use e10 (a carrot) rather than a stick (which means people will be worse off using e10 or considerable worse off if they have to or choose to use super unleaded)

incentives are usually carrots. The treasury will be getting more tax revenue from this so they could have at least made it tax neutral which would encourage more people to replace their none e10 compatible cars etc.

Guess thats just me who thinks its nice to have a carrot occasionally rather than to continue to punish people into change
 
Still dont get what your proposal actually is? are you saying E10 should be cheaper because it has less energy in it? to move people away from a fuel they can no longer buy? E5 95ron?

Surely making people drive less is the real way to reduce carbon emissions if thats your objective.
 
There is an incentive to use it. It'll be the cheapest available petrol.

What you want is more akin to a reward - being given a 'discount' to reward you for accepting the change to E10 from E5, even though you're likely already incentivised enough that you'll use E10 anyway when it appears.

I can't imagine there's many people out there who would refuse to use E10 as things stand now but would be A-OK if it came with a minor reduction in price. Especially so in a market that is so price volatile any 'reduction' in price would be forgotten in a matter of weeks as the prices go back up, down, up, down, up, up, up, down, up, down, down, up .... etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom