Say no to E10 fuel

[DavidS]

From my level of semi-ignorance...... very well put Richard.

[daveuprite]

Richard's points above are all quite valid, but be careful not to oversimplify a complicated subject.

The drive to replace 5%, then 10%, of fossil derivation from mainstream vehicle fuel was well-meaning. It was an attempt to replace some of the petroleum derived from 50-400 million year old fossils with a fuel derived from a short-cycle carbon source (in other words, a readily replaceable and therefore far more sustainable fuel, made from crops that can be grown and replaced quickly). This is important because the CO2 release from recent crop-derived ethanol is quickly reabsorbed by the next crop grown, unlike crude oil extraction which results in the 'one-time' burning of an irreplaceable ('non-renewable') resource laid down in bulk millions of years ago. This creates a net increase in carbon in the atmosphere, which results in global warming.

So much for the basic GCSE chemistry lesson - we all know this anyway (or should...). The point is that ethanol in petrol was an attempt to reduce net oil consumption and anthropogenic CO2 emmissions in a quick and easy way. It was seized upon by the GW Bush administration and others as a quick fix they could sign up to, without committing to the genuine long hard slog of totally replacing fossil fuel derived energy with renewables (solar, wave, wind, geothermal, hydro etc). It was done to pacify some voices of protest without overly upsetting the powerful oil lobby, from which Bush and many other leaders gained their funding and support. What was conveniently ignored throughout, because it was a political rather than a scientific decision, was the co-lateral impact of turning millions of hectares of land from food production to bio-fuels. The discussion was never properly had, or at least not before the politicians had already leaped upon what they saw as a simple way out of trouble. And furthermore the poor quality of the trade-off between 5/10% petrol and ethanol was not properly explored or explained. Ethanol is combustible, sure, but does not behave exactly like petrol, and the consequences (hydrophilic reactions, erosions of materials etc) were largely ignored in the haste to look 'green'.

The genuine green lobby has known and understood this 'green-wash' for some time, and it knows the political chicanery behind it. Nothing replaces the authentic move from reliance on fossil fuels to truly renewable energy sources, regardless of the temporary and contingent political forces to frustrate it, driven by shareholder profits and business self-interest.

So... yes one can support the elimination of E10 from petrol, but only on the condition that fossil fuels themselves are also subject to a campaign of elimination and permanent replacement.

[HedgeHopper]

Added Safety case relating to effects on the fuel systems of some piston engined light aircraft that are currently cleared to use Mogas where problems are allready showing up with 5% Ethanol

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

Thanks everyone.

Dave...your point about renewable fuel is highly pertinent. You will note that my response offers replacement of diesel with HVO as a more effective alternative strategy to mitigate both toxic pollution and GHG from the total road fuel burn.

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

My response has been noted, the Government says!

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

More interesting stuff here:

http://armchairbiker.com/ethanol-in-pet ... d-to-know/

BTW...a 'classic bike' appears to by anything with a carb...

[SteveR]

Shame this https://aspenfuel.co.uk/products/aspen-fuel/ is not more affordable

[daveuprite]

There's a new labelling system coming in, which you might want to be aware of:

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... tober-2018