PodOne Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Hi all What's everyone's thoughts on the governments proposal to switch to E10 by next year which will see an extra 350,000 cars scraped and off the road/year and importantly what impact will it have on our cars and PI's metering unit? Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mick Forey Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 This is at the consultation stage. So if you want to have your say, then add your view here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-e10-petrol Mick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mikell Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Does E10 affect PI or Webers or SU's any differently? Just wondering that if E5 does become more difficult (? or even impossible) to obtain, then which fuelling system would be most resilient or easily modified - or no difference between the 3 ? Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobH Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 48 minutes ago, PodOne said: What's everyone's thoughts on the governments proposal to switch to E10 by next year which will see an extra 350,000 cars scraped and off the road/year and importantly what impact will it have on our cars and PI's metering unit? Don't over-hype it Andy. It wouldn't be that disastrous (where did you get that number from?) and the proposal includes keeping E5 as the 'super' grade of fuel. Also remember the E number is an 'up to' figure so the content may well be less in practice. quote: it should be rolled out as a replacement for the current 95 E5 "premium" grade. This would be accompanied by a requirement to keep E5 available in the higher octane super grade (98 E5). and: As a number of vehicles and other petrol-powered machinery are not approved for use with E10, the ongoing supply of the current E5 grade will need to be maintained. There might be a slight loss of power running on E10 and some hoses and other bits might need changing long-term. Don't forget that other countries have had E10 for a long time and I don't recall hearing any real horror stories about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Vincent Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 The news report that i read stated that the introduction of E10 would result in lower carbon dioxide emissions. Can someone please explain how that works? Ethanol is C2 H6 O and it combines with Oxygen to form H2O and CO2. How does that create less carbon dioxide that burning raw petrol? Also, creating Ethanol requires the fermentation of starch into alcohol and CO2. Is my schoolboy chemistry wrong somewhere? Rgds Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobH Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) They are basing that on using corn as the source of the ethanol Ian, so the CO2 removed by the plant from the atmosphere goes back into the atmosphere when you burn it - i.e. no net gain. All completely pointless of course as vehicles produce 2% of the 1% of CO2 produced by the UK of the total of 3% from all human sources - while 97% of it is entirely natural. Removing this tiny fraction will make not one iota of difference to anything except our economy. Edited March 4, 2020 by RobH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Glasbey Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 My TR3A is modified and fitted with Weber 45s . I always use the "ultimate" petrol.....and carry some additive for times when I can only get unleaded 95 : Millers Oils VSPe power plus (adding up to 2 octane numbers ....protects against ethanol up to E10). What more can you do ? Chris. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foster461 Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 E10 is the default over here at least up here in the north east. On the carbureted cars it is just a matter of making sure all of the rubber (hoses, fuel pump etc) are E10 compliant. Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Glasbey Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 A good point Stan and I have also changed hoses . Chris. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oddball Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 I’m on Weber’s and have changed all the fuel hoses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PodOne Posted March 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, RobH said: Don't over-hype it Andy. It wouldn't be that disastrous (where did you get that number from?) and the proposal includes keeping E5 as the 'super' grade of fuel. Also remember the E number is an 'up to' figure so the content may well be less in practice. Hi Rob BBC Radio 4 and breakfast. But then can you ever believe of late anything they say. The focus was on bring the change forward to next year to meet climate change targets. Are the metering unit o rings and seals E10 tolerant? Andy Edited March 4, 2020 by PodOne Another Question Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mick Forey Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Bio-ethanol is greenwashing at best. How much land, fertiliser and water is now used to grow plants to turn into bio-ethanol? There is a direct conflict in certain parts of the world with land and water use for crop production for humans. Governments have driven the demand for bio-ethanol for political and security of supply reasons and dressed it up as being good for the environment. How much secondary rainforest has been burned down for bio-ethanol and other so called green crops? What is the return on that? If governments want to reduce CO2 emissions from cars then increase the subsidy on electric vehicles, charging stations and all forms of renewable energy. Cutting FIT, adding VAT to home charging and storage systems is counter-productive. Subsidising the petrochemical industry to produce bio-ethanol is bonkers, IMHO. Mick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stillp Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 I heartily agree with your first paragraph Mick, but not your second. Please don't confuse 'renewable' with 'green'. Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bleednipple Posted March 11, 2020 Report Share Posted March 11, 2020 On 3/4/2020 at 11:24 AM, RobH said: They are basing that on using corn as the source of the ethanol Ian, so the CO2 removed by the plant from the atmosphere goes back into the atmosphere when you burn it - i.e. no net gain. All completely pointless of course as vehicles produce 2% of the 1% of CO2 produced by the UK of the total of 3% from all human sources - while 97% of it is entirely natural. Removing this tiny fraction will make not one iota of difference to anything except our economy. Not sure where you get your figures for "vehicles produce 2% of the 1% of CO2 produced by the UK" Rob. According to ONS, road transport contributes about one-fifth of the UK's total GHG emissions. And that is increasing, both in absolute terms and as a percentage as emissions from power generation have fallen. On that basis one can well see why policymakers look to a spectrum of measures to reduce emissions from fuel burning, including ethanol (although how effective that paticular measure actually is in net terms is debatable). As to 97% of CO2 being from natural sources, that relates virtually entirely to growing and decomposition of biomass and these natural emissions and absorption in the (slow) carbon cycle have been pretty much exactly in balance... until the industrial revolution, since when cumulative excess, human-induced, emissions have progressively outpaced the absorptive capacity of the biosphere. Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stillp Posted March 11, 2020 Report Share Posted March 11, 2020 On 3/4/2020 at 11:24 AM, RobH said: Removing this tiny fraction will make not one iota of difference to anything except our economy. And the profits of the ethanol producers Rob. Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bleednipple Posted March 11, 2020 Report Share Posted March 11, 2020 1 hour ago, stillp said: And the profits of the ethanol producers Rob. Pete Quite possibly. And the mandatory installation of seat belts increased the profits of seat belt manufacturers, but put a whole bunch of coffin makers on short hours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.