|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
This BBC story is timely and relevant: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56819257
|
|
It seems plain stupid to be growing crops to ship around the planet and then burn them in the form of ethanol. In the not to distant future the UK is destined to be the torch carrier to save the planet with its low carbon initiatives. We will be eating less meat and drinking less milk(3 teaspoons a day) freezing in our ground/air sourced heated homes. We will be building more solar farms and wind farms and painting our homes with that new whiter than white paint they have just made which reflects the sun. This to happen by 2035 and the UK produces less than 1% of the planets carbon. China on the other hand with its 35% and increasing CO2 mentions the year 2060 by which time we will all be fried toast if you listen to some. The good citizens will be picking up the bill if it ever happens. Meanwhile plans are being put in place to colonise Mars, there is already a vehicle and mini helicopter up there to survey the land. I understand the main problem is a distinct lack of atmosphere. We could export some surplus CO2 to start it off. With all this CO2 it should not belong before trees and plants start to flourish and we could bring more ethanol back home!
|
Meanwhile plans are being put in place to colonise Mars, there is already a vehicle and mini helicopter up there to survey the land. I understand the main problem is a distinct lack of atmosphere. We could export some surplus CO2 to start it off. With all this CO2 it should not belong before trees and plants start to flourish and we could bring more ethanol back home!
Time to brush up on your Mars information - it already has around 95% CO2 in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
You think that these crops planted, tended, harvested, processed or transported by hand or using remote-controlled, solar-powered machinery? Organic they aren't.
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
You think that these crops planted, tended, harvested, processed or transported by hand or using remote-controlled, solar-powered machinery? Organic they aren't.
To say nothing of the fertiliser used - which will be produced from oil.
The thinking behind most of these initiatives could be shot to bits by an 11 year old using logic and a search engine.
|
|
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
You think that these crops planted, tended, harvested, processed or transported by hand or using remote-controlled, solar-powered machinery? Organic they aren't.
Would not expect them to be grown organically...don't expect them to be harvested by hand either...or harvested using solar powered machinery...
You've not answered my question though...so to make it easier...how does it compare to extracting oil refining it etc? Is it better/worse/the same?
|
|
Thanks for the heads up. My daily driver is a 1998 MX5 and it’s not compatible with E10. Does anybody know if any of the big petrol companies will continue to produce E5? Or alternatively I might have to find an additive to mix in with the fuel
|
|
I think the more expensive versions of the likes of BP (Ultimate?) and other ‘super fuels’ will continue to be E5, so those would be the ones to go for.
|
|
Well that makes it easier. However not all my local petrol stations offer premium fuels. I did used to use the shell premium fuel and noticed no difference at all. I did stop using it when it became a lot more expensive than the regular fuel. So this is going to hit me the pocket then
|
|
|
|
I don't think older car owners need worry. I remember back in the '50s and '60s Cleveland Discol fuel containing alcohol was widely available. Seals in those days were probably a lot more prone to damage than today but the roads weren't covered in petrol. Just oil!
|
I don't think older car owners need worry. I remember back in the '50s and '60s Cleveland Discol fuel containing alcohol was widely available. Seals in those days were probably a lot more prone to damage than today but the roads weren't covered in petrol. Just oil!
You need to read this before advising older car owners not to worry about E10.
Authoritative information about E10.
www.fbhvc.co.uk/fuels#E10
|
|
Focussed posted the above link as well.
It is well worth reading.
Answers all questions.
|
|
"You've not answered my question though...so to make it easier...how does it compare to extracting oil refining it etc? Is it better/worse/the same?"
Oil is already there and has to extracted and refined and the energy we need has to come from somewhere.
The growing of crops which is taking up land that could otherwise be used for food is immoral.
Refineries have to be set up to process the corn or whatever crop is being refined for ethanol so you have a large duplicate industry operating to produce a product for energy and I doubt these refineries are next door to each other
Yes it makes the cogs of big business go around but the end product burned as fuel in cars to give less MPG but also less carbon is just status quo. The gut feeling is that it is all about business and carbon trading. The average guy in the street has not got a clue of what is going on except as with many things it does not feel right or make sense.
|
"You've not answered my question though...so to make it easier...how does it compare to extracting oil refining it etc? Is it better/worse/the same?"
Oil is already there and has to extracted and refined and the energy we need has to come from somewhere.
The growing of crops which is taking up land that could otherwise be used for food is immoral.
Refineries have to be set up to process the corn or whatever crop is being refined for ethanol so you have a large duplicate industry operating to produce a product for energy and I doubt these refineries are next door to each other
Yes it makes the cogs of big business go around but the end product burned as fuel in cars to give less MPG but also less carbon is just status quo. The gut feeling is that it is all about business and carbon trading. The average guy in the street has not got a clue of what is going on except as with many things it does not feel right or make sense.
It's true that we need energy has to come from somewhere - be that oil/ethanol or anything else. My question is which is better from an environmental point of view.
Do agree that it's not good to be taking up land that can be used to grow crops is being used to grow fuel.
|
|
Thanks for that link. My car will be fine as long as I run it on the premium stuff but the old back balance is another story!
|
|
"It's true that we need energy has to come from somewhere - be that oil/ethanol or anything else. My question is which is better from an environmental point of view."
Well they are not making ethanol to stretch out the worlds declining oil reserves. The whole question of climate change is just too complicated for anyone to answer. Countries all over the world are pulling in different directions. The UK for instance is talking about planting more trees while Brazil and neighbouring countries of the river Amazon (regarded as the lungs of the world) are stripping the forest as there were no tomorrow. The good news today is that China is meeting with the USA and other countries to discuss so called climate change. The arrogance of humans when it is the SUN that is the main driving force of the worlds climate
However the worlds rapidly increasing population and using all the worlds resources is not helping..
|
I don't think older car owners need worry. I remember back in the '50s and '60s Cleveland Discol fuel containing alcohol was widely available. ........
You need to read this before advising older car owners not to worry about E10.
www.fbhvc.co.uk/fuels#E10
Read. Not particularly informative. I still don't think older car owners need worry. Why should 100mls of ethanol per litre be any more troublesome than the current up to 50mls per litre? I didn't see an answer to that question.
|
|
John F one of the previous website links to a government website is telling me that my car should not run on e10. So the question is why risk it? The additional cost of the fuel of likely to be cheaper than dealing with an expensive breakdown.
|
I still don't think older car owners need worry. Why should 100mls of ethanol per litre be any more troublesome than the current up to 50mls per litre?
John, would you like to sit in a car partly full of petrol?
When I converted the Caterham to injection I had to replace all the fuel system from the tank to the engine. My chosen fuel hose was TFE from Think Automotive (American Military spec which says compatible with all fuels) but from the tank to the LP pump to the swirlpot to the filter to the HP pump was just to tight since the TFE hose is very stiff. So I used a different hose that the (well known) supplier said was compatible with "modern" fuels and since it was also stainless braided looked like the TFE hose.
Move on 3 years approx and not far from home I spotted that there was a strong smell of petrol and the gauge was dropping like a stone. Looked under the back of the car and petrol was dripping slightly so turned around and went back, by then the tank was very low and the smell was really bad. Jacked the car up, touched the hose (one of the alternative ones I used) where it was still dripping and I could feel that it was broken inside the braid, so much for being compatible. Removed the hoses and the rubber had gone rock hard, clearly not compatible with modern fuels. Only the braid was holding the hoses together.
Worse was to come, petrol had found its way between the chassis and body panels on the rear bulkhead and the carpets under the seats were soaked in petrol, not a pleasant thought.
Still had some TFE hose left and a mate modified the swirl pot (easy, he made it originally) and made me a couple of special unions that enabled me to replace 3 of the suspect hoses with the good stuff. But the 12mm hoses from the swirlpot to the filter and filter to the HP pump were just going to be impossible. After some research found a product made by a company called Cohline which met all the standards for modern fuels including those with over 10% Ethanol. Not stainless braided unfortunately but cotton braided. Decided to go with that and keep a check on these 2 hoses.
16 years after fitting the TFE hose its still on and no leaks. So far the Cohline hose has remained nice and flexible after 13 years but I do plan to change it soon for more of the same. At a tenner its rude not to, it only takes about a foot.
So for the sake of a few pounds John I would suggest that you replace the hoses on the TR before using E10 fuel and for safety's sake check the hoses on the car which were never designed for E5. There is plenty about this on classic forums.
As for me, will probably use the E5 Continuation fuel presuming its available locally but on longer trips a fill up with E10 occasionally should be fine.
Just checked and the Cohline hose is suitable for use with E10 petrol.
|
I still don't think older car owners need worry. Why should 100mls of ethanol per litre be any more troublesome than the current up to 50mls per litre?
John, would you like to sit in a car partly full of petrol?
Certainly not. Good thing you (presumably) weren't a smoker! But the TR7's fuel supply is simple and low pressure by comparison - just a single metal pipe from the fuel tank to a small mechanical pump under the carbs and a few short lengths of now very hard forty year old rubber connections. I'm surprised they have lasted so well, but of course it is a well engineered car with good quality original parts. (There is even a tattered red white and blue paper Unipart label still attached to the exposed bottom radiator hose). Perhaps your unsatisfactory leaky hose was not what it purported to be.
I was warned at the last MoT that the fuel pipe was looking a bit corroded near the petrol tank, so that's an imminent task to inspect and repair.
I still don't have an answer as to why 10% ethanol (E10), the equivalent of a weak pinot grigio, might be significantly more corrosive than long term exposure of up to 5% ethanol (E5).
|
I still don't think older car owners need worry. Why should 100mls of ethanol per litre be any more troublesome than the current up to 50mls per litre?
John, would you like to sit in a car partly full of petrol?
Certainly not. Good thing you (presumably) weren't a smoker! But the TR7's fuel supply is simple and low pressure by comparison - just a single metal pipe from the fuel tank to a small mechanical pump under the carbs and a few short lengths of now very hard forty year old rubber connections. I'm surprised they have lasted so well, but of course it is a well engineered car with good quality original parts. (There is even a tattered red white and blue paper Unipart label still attached to the exposed bottom radiator hose). Perhaps your unsatisfactory leaky hose was not what it purported to be.
I was warned at the last MoT that the fuel pipe was looking a bit corroded near the petrol tank, so that's an imminent task to inspect and repair.
I still don't have an answer as to why 10% ethanol (E10), the equivalent of a weak pinot grigio, might be significantly more corrosive than long term exposure of up to 5% ethanol (E5).
Here's an explanation from the USA who have had to put up with ethanol in fuel for a long time.
www.equipmentworld.com/equipment/article/14952223/...p
I had to admit I didn't know about the acetic acid problem.
But hey - it's saving the planet - allegedly.
|
|
|
|
|
Especially as the crops grown to create the so-called 'green' element of the fuel is not that green and takes valuable farmland away from use for producing food, or, in many cases, shipped from a long way (like many wood pellets/chips are for power stations).
What's not 'green' about the crops/fuel itself?
You think that these crops planted, tended, harvested, processed or transported by hand or using remote-controlled, solar-powered machinery? Organic they aren't.
Would not expect them to be grown organically...don't expect them to be harvested by hand either...or harvested using solar powered machinery...
You've not answered my question though...so to make it easier...how does it compare to extracting oil refining it etc? Is it better/worse/the same?
That's not the main issue - they take land away from use to GROW FOOD. That they aren't 'green' themselves (though likely not as bad for the environment as oil, but by not that much) is just another problem. Our country imports a HUGE percentage of both the food and feedstock we need - don't you think we should be growing MORE at home, not less?
Note also that because they reduce a car's mpg, it use more fuel. Even on cars that can 'take' the fuel, it still does some damage to the engine, just less than if there was only 5% or none. Eventually that car will need work on it to repair that damage, which will require energy. Rarely do 'alternative fuels' look at the entire lifecycle and knock-on effects on changing.
That's BAD science (sadly par for the course in the modern era). there are also loads of firms and politicians with vested interests in promoting this technology, which often means (like a lot of 'green' tech) its claims dont pass muster and it often gets inappropriately used.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 23/04/2021 at 12:04
|
|
"Even on cars that can 'take' the fuel, it still does some damage to the engine, just less than if there was only 5% or none."
Can you explain what damage is caused?
I can find nothing to support the idea that engines which are compatible with E10 suffer damage.
|
|
"""Our country imports a HUGE percentage of both the food and feedstock we need - don't you think we should be growing MORE at home, not less?"""
We ordered UK Discovery apples at £1.90 per six. Morrisons miss picked/subbed Royal Gala at £1.20 per six. The Royal Gala came all the way from Chile some 7500 miles away Apples are just an example, the UK no longer produces enough fruit and veg to support itself... It is a sad state of affairs that imported fruit is cheaper than home grown and if any thing is to be seriously done about climate change than world trade should be looked at. World trade has to happen but sensible steps should be taken where practical. Large ships equipped with giant sales are on the drawing board but how big container ships like the Evergiven could deploy these is something else. Now where is the EG last I heard it was still waiting in the Suez canal negotiating a fine for getting stuck
|
Apples are just an example, the UK no longer produces enough fruit and veg to support itself... It is a sad state of affairs that imported fruit is cheaper than home grown
Part of the problem is that the buying public expects to find everything it wants all year round. The only British apples available in April must have been months in cold storage. That's why southern hemisphere ones are on Morrisons shelf. The sillier commodities are flowers from Kenya for example. And I suspect you may drink some coffee - now where on earth does that come from ?
And we haven't grown enough food for our needs/wants for decades. WW2 forced the home=growing industry to expand, and allotments and back gardens became essential. We are also too grown-up to live on porridge, spuds and root veg through the winter - boring.
|
Apples are just an example, the UK no longer produces enough fruit and veg to support itself... It is a sad state of affairs that imported fruit is cheaper than home grown
Part of the problem is that the buying public expects to find everything it wants all year round. The only British apples available in April must have been months in cold storage. That's why southern hemisphere ones are on Morrisons shelf. The sillier commodities are flowers from Kenya for example. And I suspect you may drink some coffee - now where on earth does that come from ?
And we haven't grown enough food for our needs/wants for decades. WW2 forced the home=growing industry to expand, and allotments and back gardens became essential. We are also too grown-up to live on porridge, spuds and root veg through the winter - boring.
Britain was last self sufficient in food in 1850.
|
|
"Even on cars that can 'take' the fuel, it still does some damage to the engine, just less than if there was only 5% or none."
Can you explain what damage is caused?
I can find nothing to support the idea that engines which are compatible with E10 suffer damage.
I am presuming that the damage to seals (and other issues mentioned) that happens with other engines that can't take E10 also happens to those that 'can', but just a lot slower. After all, I suspect many engines that can take E10 won't be able to run just on ethanol. It's not as though the engine tech is completely different.
|
I am presuming that the damage to seals (and other issues mentioned) that happens with other engines that can't take E10 also happens to those that 'can', but just a lot slower.
If E10 was going to damage seals and hoses and potentially cause fuel leaks resulting in fires manufacturers would not suggest that models were OK to use E10. 18 year old cars are on the list and the majority of those will still be on the original components. which will have aged naturally by now.
If we have a rash of car fires that are proven to be E10 related its going to look pretty bad for the manufacturers involved especially if people are killed.
|
Large ships equipped with giant sales are on the drawing board but how big container ships like the Evergiven could deploy these is something else. Now where is the EG last I heard it was still waiting in the Suez canal negotiating a fine for getting stuck
How are large sailing vessels going to negotiate the Suez and Panama canals? Come to that, forget canals, what about the Strait of Malacca, one of the most important shipping routes in the world. Over 500 miles long but less that two miles wide in parts and with a navigable channel much narrower than that in places.
I know, we could tow them through with E10 fuelled tugs.
Edited by Middleman on 24/04/2021 at 21:00
|
|
"Even on cars that can 'take' the fuel, it still does some damage to the engine, just less than if there was only 5% or none."
Can you explain what damage is caused?
I can find nothing to support the idea that engines which are compatible with E10 suffer damage.
From the link I posted earlier 10% ethanol weakens mixtures by 3.5% approx.
Whether the closed loop lambda electronics will compensate for that I don't know.
|
|
I'd like to know what the opportunity cost is for all this alcohol fuel daftness. Will we find people growing crops to convert to biofuel and not food? How many therefore will go hungry to feed politicians green vanity? Will Greta Thunberg give a monkeys about the poor and hungry this idiocy causes? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
