Safe Speed Forums

A new Morrisons supermarket and petrol station has opened recently near me. The petrol station is selling Bioethanol at 2p/l less than unleaded.

I dismissed the fuel, thinking that it was only suitable for a couple of SAABs and Fords that had been built to use it, but when my dad started asking me about it (he runs a rather thirsty Audi A8) I started looking into it (as much for myself too, running a 3litre Jag).

What I've discovered is that converting a petrol-injection car to run on the stuff is a relatively straightforward case of recalibrating the fuel injectors either through re-programming the ECU or adding a piggy-back module that retunes the injector pulse depending on that the knock-sensors of the engine are reporting (bioethanol has a much higher octane rating than petrol!!)

No additional tanks, fuel lines or fillers required (as per LPG). DIY conversion kits are available manufactured in the USA and sold through an official UK distributor, but there is a bit of 'restrictive practice' going on as the UK prices match the US ones pound-to-dollar (ie. double the price) and the US suppliers clearly state they will not ship to the UK and potential customers have to purchase through the UK dealer.

£500 is the cost, which just isn't going to be recouped at a saving of a few quid a tankful.

However, I have found one US seller willing to break the embargo, but I'm still looking at about £200 including shipping.

All the above puff, though, isn't really the point of my post. What I also discovered is that E85 bioethanol is produced from crops with just 15% petroleum added to aid cold starting, so the price should not be tracking that of petrol as is it is not as subject to the vagaries of oil prices.

Morrisons however are insisting on maintaining the 2p price gap, even though their stock of the fuel probably predates the recent massive rises in petrol prices at the pumps. Tax on E85 biofuel is 20p less than petrol, but when it was launched the official line was that manufacturing and delivery costs made up the difference.

I suspect a conspiracy by the petroleum lot (who, lets face it probably own the petrol stations in the supermarkets) to stop the biofuel becoming more attractive!!

What makes you think that it is not due to the FULL rate of fuel taxation ?
Most other fuels are.
In any case, bioethanol is no greener than fossil fuels, and can be expected to be taxed the same. The gov seems to be coming around to the morality problem with bio-fuels...ie: converting food crops to fuel is a no-starter.
You can probably get it imported ok, but the tax will still be the same....

Oh, and just noticed THIS on aol....another numpty professor.

EDIT: Slightly reduced rates.

Hydrocarbon oils: Introduction of a reduced rate of duty on bioethanol
HMRC Reference: BN CE27/04




Who is likely to be affected?
1. Businesses producing, distributing or importing bioethanol, and those blending or mixing bioethanol with hydrocarbon oils.

General description of the measure
Rate of duty
2. A new rate of duty is being introduced on bioethanol used (or set aside for use) as fuel in any engine, motor or other machinery, or as an additive or extender in any substance so used.

3. The rate will be 28.52 pence per litre. This rate has been set at 20 pence per litre below the prevailing rate for sulphur-free petrol, and will apply to pure bioethanol and to the proportions of bioethanol blended or mixed with hydrocarbon oils.

Definition of bioethanol
4. To qualify for the new rate of duty, bioethanol must be petrol quality liquid fuel consisting of ethanol produced from biomass.

5. Petrol quality means capable of being used for the same purposes as light oil. Biomass means vegetable and animal substances consisting of the biodegradable fraction of products, wastes and residues from agriculture, forestry and related activities, or industrial and municipal waste.

Duty
6. The point at which bioethanol becomes taxable will continue to be the point at which it is used or set aside for use as a fuel for any engine, motor or other machinery, or as an additive or extender in any substance so used.

Blending and mixing
7. Blending of hydrocarbon oil and bioethanol before the duty point for the hydrocarbon oil has passed will be permitted in a tax warehouse where sufficient records are kept to show the proportion of each ingredient in the resultant mixture. The bioethanol duty rate will apply only to the bioethanol part of the blend, including any denaturant.

8. Mixing of bioethanol and hydrocarbon oil after the duty point will be permitted.

9. Where blending or mixing is allowed, there will be no restriction on the proportions of the constituent parts.

Other requirements
10. As bioethanol is an alcohol, businesses producing, distributing or importing bioethanol, and those blending or mixing bioethanol with light oils will need to comply with the requirements of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, Spirits Regulations 1991, and the regulations that govern the denaturing of alcohol, which are currently the Methylated Spirits Regulations 1987.

Operative date
11. The new duty rate will come into effect on 1 January 2005.

Current law and proposed revisions
12. Amendments will be made to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 by Finance Act 2004. Changes to the administrative arrangements of the tax will be made by secondary legislation.

Further advice
13. Separate Budget Notice CE26 covering the rates of excise duty on hydrocarbon oils has also been published.

14. A Bioethanol notice will be published shortly.

15. If you have any questions about this change, please contact the National Advice Service on 0845 010 9000. Information about all Customs and Excise related Budget Measures is available from the Customs website at www.hmce.gov.uk.

As I stated (and you discovered) the rate is 20p less than petrol. The thing is, though, that biofuels create a dilemma for two reasons. The first is that they are effectively carbon neutral as the crops grown to create the fuel take in as much CO2 as the fuel emits when burnt (more, in fact, if you take into account partially burnt hydrocarbons producing a degree of carbon monoxide), so if the global warming scare-ists and bandwagon jumping eco-aware politicians were true to their words then they'd be encouraging its use.....

BUT it will of course impinge on the oil industry which this country can rely on to make it some money on the world stage.

Brazil is an oil-independant nation because it relies on bioethanol for its vehicle fuels, and has done so quite successfully now for 3 decades.

Anyway, my point is that the price shouldn't track the cost of petrol by exactly 2p per litre even when there is a massive rise in the cost of crude oil which is then used to justify an increase in pump prices. E85 biofuel is only 15% petroleum derived. The fact that the 2p differential is being maintained is purely artificial.

It dosent look viable unless you only drive in these two counties
http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk/default.asp?docId=12458

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

The green party are not encouraging its use, the opposite in fact. As are many other people. With a world where hundreds of millions have little to eat, using food-crops for fuel has no morality to it.
And there is more to the moral dilemma as well. Using the "left-overs" from sugar production etc may be a better idea, but the use of basic food crops has many "up-in-arms"

There is no shortage of food in the world, with or without biofuel production. Starvation mainly down to poverty.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Quite! Its not the quantity of food, but it's distribution. Butter-mountain anyone?

I'm not even sure it's true to say that it is "carbon neutral" once the CO2 involved in planting, tending, harvesting, procesing and transporting it is added. Of course, crude oil also needs "harvesting" and transporting and processing but it doesn't need planting or tending. It's also produced in much larger quantities in far fewer locations.

Besides that, from a cost saving point of view, I have a vague feeling that I saw something (may have been on PH) about cars running this fuel also being very slightly thirstier, thus wiping out any financial saving anyway.

Finally, although I agree we're not short of food (on a worldwide scale)...YET, that doesn't mean there are no moral arguments against it. As soon as "biomass" develops a high enough commercial value, there will be a temptation for poor countries to hack down their rain forests to grow the stuff - which might be counter-productive! Similarly I could imagine third world despots who could easily watch their own people starve whilst they sold biofuel crops for foreign dollars.

Biofuels are just a red herring. With this sort of thing happening, I certainly wouldn't want to use them. Even if you don't buy into global warming, with the way car use is expanding in China & India, everyone has got to realise that by 20 years time, oil is going to get very expensive.

In 20 years time the REAL wars will start....

I remain (maybe folornly!) optimistic that by then we'll have moved over to a more hydrogen-based economy. We just need lots of renewable electricity and lots of water!

We are not going to have lots of renewable energy any time soon. We may not even have enough non-renewable energy soon. In any case, even the "cheap" renewable energy is going to be more expensive than the fossil fuels. Nuclear is going to be as popular as a turd in a restaurant and fossil fuels are [green] public enemy number 1.
That's the first problem.
The next is that even if hydrogen cars are produced (either fuel cell or ICE) the existing infrastructure cannot cope with fuelling vehicles with liquid hydrogen, even if they can get the fuel to the filling stations. Maybe they will produce it on-site ?
Yes, but the cars still need lots of it....it doesn't go as far as petrol....mpg that is.
Maybe methanol ?
Lots of ifs....
Until everyone decides which horse to back, there isn't even a race.

Fusion is coming.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yes, and I'd still like to see tidal movements harnessed - we've rather an abundance of that on the UK's West coast!

I agree that the hydrogen infrastructure is a big problem but hey, so is the war in Iraq! I'd be interested to see where hydrogen fuel research would be if the UK and US had spent the same amount of money on that as they have in Iraq!

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that ethanol has less energy in it than petrol, so you will acheive lower MPG figures. Octane rating has nothing to do with how much energy the fuel contains merely how resistant it is to spontaneous combustion in the cylinder (aka knock or detonation).

This is why you need a piggy back ECU (or an ECU that supports multiple maps such as the Apexi Power FC) in order to remap your injector pulses and ignition timing.

So with a pathetic 2p/litre price difference, it is going to be more expensive, not less. Plus there is the cost of conversion.

With the fact that it's not even saving the planet, this seems like an enormous con.

Not anytime soon.
Even the best estimates place a working fusion reactor some decades into the future. Some scientists, involved in the program, say it may never be a working proposition. We'll have to see. I think that, so far, the spend is in the order of 15-20 billion and the [electricity] return is about tuppence.

PESSIMISM+

In terms of world energy needs 'decades' is indeed 'soon'.

Present energy plans should be designed to bridge the really rather small gap between here and fusion.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Lets see....it was in 2003 that the first event of "controlled" nuclear fusion took place. The present "reactors" will almost certainly not be the design that is used....keeping the reaction contained is going to be the major problem, and doing so for years at a time is going to be even harder. The sums are not looking good either, the reactors will probably never "pay" for themselves and their probable lifespan is only going to be months. Still, it keeps loads of people employed.. Lets say that in about 50-100 years nuclear fusion will be in general use. I don't think so. A much better idea would be to improve the efficiency of electricity generation from sunlight, then we can use the sahara for something...and grow mushrooms under the solar cells !

May I remind you of "Clarke's Third Law"...?

"When an eminent scientist states that something 'may be possible' he is almost certain to be right. When an eminent scientist states that something 'is impossible' he is almost certain to be wrong."

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Yes, that is so.
I am happy to say that controlled fusion (having happened for a few seconds) is possible. I am also happy to point out that keeping the process going, and controlled, for decades at a time in one reactor, is also unlikely. You have to look at the engineering problems that current reactors are having...the metals used in their construction are not having a good time of it...and they (the metals) are not the run-of-the-mill mild steel....but some quite exotic stainless steel alloys...under the stress of high temperatures and constant neutron bombardment they are, quite simply, falling to bits. Keeping the plasma contained to start the reaction is one thing, keeping the reaction going AND extracting the heat while maintaining containment is another. The the reactor itself will need to be constructed to last. The ones we have now (fission reactors) are not doing so well...the maintenance problems are massive. Mind you, there will be less radioactivity....but the reactors will still be too radioactive for manual repairs...