E10 petrol for hybrid engine, or not?

[Catlover]

Reading on the internet today of reports from drivers who are using E10. They were very critical of the worse mpg they getting with E10 and wondering where the savings in emissions come from when you getting a lot less mpg then E5, a lot less then the 1% the government have said.

[Mikw]

12 minutes ago, Catlover said:

Reading on the internet today of reports from drivers who are using E10. They were very critical of the worse mpg they getting with E10 and wondering where the savings in emissions come from when you getting a lot less mpg then E5, a lot less then the 1% the government have said.

Well, due to the petrol crisis i was forced to use E10 despite saying i wouldn't.

Today i did a round trip, in 4 stages, of 100 miles. The trip average read 80.2 mpg. So happy with that.

[Cyker]

It does seem like older cars are affected more than newer ones, which makes sense...

[TonyHSD]

Fuel consumption like almost no difference to me between e10 and E5, only performance, smoothness, engine noise. 

[Ian.S]

I’ve not noticed any different at all. 

[AndrueC]

It depends how much you've lost/gained and how the fuel is manufactured. I'm by no means a fan of adding ethanol but it's not just the amount of CO2 emitted while driving that matters. An equally important question to ask is where did that CO2 come from?

With conventional petrol it came from under the ground where it was to all intents and purposes isolated from the ecosystem. Thus all the carbon emitted is a net addition to the atmosphere and that's a problem.

With E?? fuels at least some of the carbon emitted was already in the ecosystem either in the air or the soil so emitting it has no overall affect. It's just part of the natural quota of carbon that is constantly cycling through the ecosystem.

But calculating how 'green' Ethanol is is complicated. CO2 is emitted during the manufacture and distribution of the product so you'd need to know where that carbon came from to decide whether or not it was a problem. Then again the same is true of petrochemical extraction and refinement.

For me the biggest problem with ethanol is the use of human food and land to produce fuel. That seems wrong and is known to increase demand for useable land which results in deforestation and/or degrading of the land.

 

[TonyHSD]

3 hours ago, AndrueC said:

It depends how much you've lost/gained and how the fuel is manufactured. I'm by no means a fan of adding ethanol but it's not just the amount of CO2 emitted while driving that matters. An equally important question to ask is where did that CO2 come from?

With conventional petrol it came from under the ground where it was to all intents and purposes isolated from the ecosystem. Thus all the carbon emitted is a net addition to the atmosphere and that's a problem.

With E?? fuels at least some of the carbon emitted was already in the ecosystem either in the air or the soil so emitting it has no overall affect. It's just part of the natural quota of carbon that is constantly cycling through the ecosystem.

But calculating how 'green' Ethanol is is complicated. CO2 is emitted during the manufacture and distribution of the product so you'd need to know where that carbon came from to decide whether or not it was a problem. Then again the same is true of petrochemical extraction and refinement.

For me the biggest problem with ethanol is the use of human food and land to produce fuel. That seems wrong and is known to increase demand for useable land which results in deforestation and/or degrading of the land.

 

Couldn’t agreed more., well said  👍👌

[Geoff W]

I've just picked up a top motoring tip from none other than H.R.H. Prince Charles on the BBC last night. From now on I'm going to stop worrying about whether to use E5 or E10 and run the car only on white wine and cheese. If it's good enough for his Aston Martin it's good enough for me!

[mpm235]

22 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

Couldn’t agreed more., well said  👍👌

Well said indded Sir! E10 is enviro-mental humbug.

[rickywales]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:47 PM, Cyker said:

It's funny seeing how different the news is presented over there to here!  

But good grief, imagine having a 100 mile school run every day here?! All parents would be bankrupt with our fuel prices!!!  

I live in rural Finland its 40 km to the food store, we dont think anything of driving 50km to meet friends for a coffee you can sometimes drive a long while without even seeing another car Im enjoying it

 

[Cyker]

Yeah my USA friends have a similar view - Think nothing of going on a 6 hour drive to visit someone  

For me, anything over 2 hours away I consider a road trip!  

[Stopeter44]

17 minutes ago, rickywales said:

I live in rural Finland its 40 km to the food store, we dont think anything of driving 50km to meet friends for a coffee you can sometimes drive a long while without even seeing another car Im enjoying it

 

Yes, but relatively, rural Finland is sparsely populated. The lady I referenced lives in a suburban area, and quite well to do. She drives 100 miles, round trip, because she wants her kids to go to a church rather than a state run school.

[Luke717]

On 10/11/2021 at 12:08 PM, Ian.S said:

I’ve not noticed any different at all. 

Ditto

[Cyker]

I have - Tank average is 7-10mpg down since pre-E10/summer, but not sure how much of that is the fuel and how much is the colder weather...

[frizzbee30]

15 hours ago, Cyker said:

I have - Tank average is 7-10mpg down since pre-E10/summer, but not sure how much of that is the fuel and how much is the colder weather...

Weather is a big factor for multiple reasons,  and if you're in a hybrid,  even more so!

 

Ultimately it's here to stay, and as brilliantly pointed out, it is 'greenwashing ', as all biofuels are.

 

So we are unfortunately stuck with it, just as we are with offsetting and carbon trading 🤔

[Cyker]

Yeah, I'm not convinced the reduction in carbon emissions of E10 offsets the extra carbon produced by having to burn more of it to get the same energy out, which is the reason they are spouting for the change.

If they'd said it was for sustainability reasons then fair enough, as we can grow more alcohol easier than growing more oil!

It's just lip service tho' - If they were serious they should have started laying the foundations for E85 years ago, then at least we'd get the benefit of being able to turbocharge the heck out of everything and cars could be optimised for it, e.g. run much higher compression levels to extract more energy from the fuel! (110RON!  )

It's not like this is a hard thing to do - Most manufacturers already have flex fuel engines for places like Brazil who already run much higher alcohol contents.

Running E10 in cars designed for E5 and E0 just makes them worse...

[AJones]

The bit I'd like to see more information on is how long E10 can safely be left in a car fuel tank before it starts risking damage to the engine or fuel systems? 

With a PHEV it is possible to do most local journeys entirely on electric, or using only small amounts of petrol so if you're mostly driving around on electric then a full tank of petrol can last months.

[Gray86]

40 minutes ago, AJones said:

The bit I'd like to see more information on is how long E10 can safely be left in a car fuel tank before it starts risking damage to the engine or fuel systems? 

With a PHEV it is possible to do most local journeys entirely on electric, or using only small amounts of petrol so if you're mostly driving around on electric then a full tank of petrol can last months.

In that case, you would be better filling up with super unleaded (ideally Tesco or Shell - 99RON) The extra octane & lower ethanol will keep the fuel potent for longer 

[twintopp]

the garages will have been selling  e10 before the regulated date to comply with the law , pumps labelled upto will have been labelled before  the law came into force, to be selling e5/110 mix would make them liable .

[Bernard Foy]

On 11/22/2021 at 5:15 PM, Cyker said:

Yeah my USA friends have a similar view - Think nothing of going on a 6 hour drive to visit someone  

For me, anything over 2 hours away I consider a road trip!  

I’ve been to the USA quite a few times and they think nothing about driving sixty miles to have dinner at a favorite restaurant 😲

[TonyHSD]

Petrol prices reduced by 2-3p, not bad. Hope they will go down even further. Tesco 99 E5 now cost only £1.49 a litre vs regular 95 E10 £1.44 ⛽️✅👌

[mpm235]

3 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

Petrol prices reduced by 2-3p, not bad. Hope they will go down even further. Tesco 99 E5 now cost only £1.49 a litre vs regular 95 E10 £1.44 ⛽️✅👌

Good! Need it to keep going down to waht it was a couple of years ago.

[Cyker]

Two bob and a ha'penny!  

[mpm235]

3 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

Petrol prices reduced by 2-3p, not bad. Hope they will go down even further. Tesco 99 E5 now cost only £1.49 a litre vs regular 95 E10 £1.44 ⛽️✅👌

 

4 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Two bob and a ha'penny!  

Arrr lad, thaa reyt!

[AndrueC]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:30 PM, Cyker said:

Yeah, I'm not convinced the reduction in carbon emissions of E10 offsets the extra carbon produced by having to burn more of it to get the same energy out, which is the reason they are spouting for the change.

That's not entirely the reason for the change. Their argument is also that the plant matter used to create the E10 is part of the current carbon cycle and thus has no effective CO2 contribution whereas the oil from which petrol is refined was buried underground and not part of the current CO2 cycle.

Or put another way:

E10: <plant>-><process>-><car>-><atmosphere>-><plant>-><process>... ad nauseum

Petrol: <underground reserve>-><process>-><car>-><atmosphere>

Burning petrol adds to the amount of CO2 in the ecosystem, burning ethanol just recycles it. Although it depends on where the energy used to process the ethanol it comes from. If it's from renewables then I would happily accept that burning E10 emits less CO2 overall than E0.

My objection to E10 is mainly that burning edible crops to power cars is wrong due to the environmental impact on the land and people starving for lack of food. Whether the CO2 impact is better or worse is something of a moot point to me.