What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
E10 Petrol - Mr D Og

E10 petrol

By the end of this year a new type of petrol is expected to become the standard across the UK.

Under plans to cut CO2 emissions, filling stations will be required to sell E10 petrol as their standard unleaded, replacing the current E5.

The new fuel has more bioethanol in it, which produces less CO2. The Government says the switch could cut the UK’s emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year. However, the fuel apparently reduces vehicles’ economy and can damage older vehicles!

E10 Petrol - Metropolis.
Go to Esso, most of them are ethanol free on the premium range.

www.esso.co.uk/en-gb/fuels/petrol
E10 Petrol - edlithgow

Havn't looked it up, but from first principles it seems unlikely that, for a given power output, tailpipe CO2 emissions are very much less on a 10% ethanol blend.

It seems more likely that they are allowing for the CO2 fixed by the crops grown to produce the bioethanol in calculating that net reduction in emissions.

This will probably assume that the crops would not be grown otherwise, which may be a doubtful assumption.

No ethanol in petrol in Taiwan yet AFAIK (other than experimental trials), because no large scale agri-bizniz lobby.

If/when it comes, it'll probably come from sugarcane. Older vehicles aren't an issue, apart from mine of course.

In the US it comes from maize, In the UK, wheat and sugar beet.

I looked it up. 0.2 % difference in CO2 tailpipe emission by E85 and gasoline, so the difference with E10 is very likely to be negligable.

Edited by edlithgow on 02/02/2021 at 06:18

E10 Petrol - galileo

This E10 business was probably the result of some climate change conference involving tons of jet fuel being burned to transport hundreds of attendees thousands of miles.

The proposal would then have been adopted by the EU and rubber stamped into UK law by t politicians who don't have a proper science degree amongst them and some of whom have a financial interest.

It is of the same 'virtue signalling' but useless policy of allowing developers to use unsuitable materials to insulate high-rise buildings in the interest of 'cutting carbon emissions'.

Rectifying these problems will expend energy that cancels the theoretical savings, the developers sit on their profits and the leaseholders (or taxpayers) suffer the costs.

E10 Petrol - sammy1

The new fuel has more bioethanol in it, which produces less CO2. The Government says the switch could cut the UK’s emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year. However, the fuel apparently reduces vehicles’ economy and can damage older vehicles!

So are we saying that we are growing crops to produce ethanol and mixing with petrol by 10% to give less mpg and it costs the same. So we end up using more fuel. The fields have to be ploughed sown and harvested. Crops have to be processed and finished ethanol transported to the refinery to be mixed with the petrol. Sounds like an awful lot of carbon trading going on! Car manufacturers are trading carbon between themselves to make the cars and please don't ask me how or why, far too complicated. I suspect that the carbon remains quite stable despite being bought and sold and moved around the world!

E10 Petrol - galileo

Carbon trading in the car industry is, according to John Cadogan's series of articles, the reason Tesla made millions of profit last year.

Musk sold the likes of GM and Ford his carbon allowances, take the sale of those out of Tesla accounts and his cars lost money.

Edited by galileo on 02/02/2021 at 18:39

E10 Petrol - Bolt

So are we saying that we are growing crops to produce ethanol and mixing with petrol by 10% to give less mpg and it costs the same. So we end up using more fuel.

Apparently the crops absorb more carbon dioxide than is given off after combustion so its meant to be cleaner, what they say happens and what does is another thing?

E10 Petrol - focussed

We have had SP95- E10 in France for a long time, there are alternatives such as SP95 and SP98, but they contain up to 5% ethanol so we don't have access to any ethanol-free fuel. As I don't run petrol powered 4 wheeled road vehicles, just motorbikes and mowers, chainsaws, chippers, strimmers etc I avoid using 95-E10 because of the storage problem during winter. (SP = UL)

My personal opinion is that adding ethanol to fuel is of marginal benefit to reducing pollution as it increases fuel consumption.

We also have E85 here for Flex-Fuel vehicles, running that stuff gives an enormous 25% reduction in fuel mileage or increase in fuel consumption if you prefer.

Why that is desirable is known only to the tree huggers and EU commissars!

But the tree huggers will tell you that even though it increases CO2 at the tailpipe, the REAL reduction in CO2 after they have calculated the reduction with one of their computer models HaHa! - ethanol reduces CO2 emissions by an enormous amount - I have read claims of over a 100% reduction (decimal point in wrong place?)

Smoke and mirrors is my comment.

  • E85
  • Edited by focussed on 02/02/2021 at 13:16

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    Producing the bioethanol is a net carbon consumer. It fixes more atmospheric carbon than is released by its production.

    If you then use that fixed atmospheric carbon to replace fossil fuel, then you reduce the carbon released to the atmosphere, irrespective of the lowered mpg. No problem with that.

    My earlier doubt, about whether they assume those crops (or equivalent crops) wouldn't otherwise be grown anyway probably isnt valid, since other crop uses dont generally replace fossil fuels, and they dont fix much carbon long term either (bonded stores of whisky aside).

    Trees are a bit of an exception, especially if you build houses with them.

    Or make charcoal.

    I have tongue in cheek suggested (in discussions with students, and on another forum) that Taiwan could make bamboo charcoal and wood alcohol in the redundant sugar refineries on the redundant sugar fields, store the charcoal wet in the should-be-redundant fish farm ponds, and release it to the rivers during (lately redundant, which could be a snag) typhoons, which would carry it to the Taiwan Strait and hence to the ocean. Sell the carbon credits, and Bob The Swiss Banker is your uncle.

    I havn't attempted to establish whether the carbon credit market would support this, but I'd guess not. It couldn't harm the grossly polluted West Coast Taiwan rivers much, but there might be some negative marine impacts, and some of it might come ashore.

    Wood alcohol yield from bamboo is probably fairly low else the Japanese would have used it during the war, and as far as I know they didn't, They used pine tree roots (dug up by school children) and made butanol (high octane, for avgas) by Clostridium acetobutylicum. fermentation of sweet potatoes. They were pretty desperate and got bombed a lot.

    Edited by edlithgow on 04/02/2021 at 10:44

    E10 Petrol - bazza

    It's a complicated subject. Ethanol has less calorific value than the longer chain hydrocarbons, so yes a gallon of it will get you fewer miles, hence the reduction in mpg of 10% blends. However the use of bioethanol from crops would reduce the burden of C02 from fossil fuels, as it is effectively so called "carbon neutral", or at least closer to that than oil derived fuel. It's by no means a solution though, as enormous areas would need to be cultivated for producing it, land badly needed to feed the world. Brazil has been running it's fleet on it for years as they have plenty of cane to ferment. there's no problem with modern cars running on it, they've been ethanol ready for years, there's a website somewhere to check your vehicle. Problems include residual water immiscibility in blends ( water drops out of solution) plus corrosion of fuel components. But it's playing round the edges of the main problem as far as I can see. Interesting though!

    E10 Petrol - ExA35Owner

    I was using gasohol in Kenya in the 1980s. Nothing really new here.

    E10 Petrol - focussed

    France has approved a flex-fuel conversion for cars that can accept it, it costs around €700 for the conversion so you can use any fuel from neat petrol to E85 and the ecu automatically adjusts. E85 is dirt cheap here at around 69 cents a litre( £0.61)

    Producers estimate that the kit is profitable after a year and a half on average for a person driving around 13,000 km (8,000 miles) a year with a car consuming 7 litres per 100 km, taking account extra consumption of E85 compared with standard petrol.

    I can't say that I've seen many if any motorists reaching for the E85 nozzle at my local filling station.

    It's usually diesel over here.

    E10 Petrol - focussed

    Dust bowl conditions caused by growing crops for biofuels.

    www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-new-dust-bowl-that.../

    We are surrounded by fields of maize here but it is harvested for dairy cattle feed - all of it, the cobs which are tiny, leaves, stalks etc.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    Yep. Just because they are Conservative Women doesn't mean they are always wrong.

    Or politically consistent, of course, since they seem to be advocating regulatory action against private enterprise.

    Still, political consistency is overrated.

    Not sure what point, if any, you are making on your local maize. Unless things have changed (with the climate, or with new varieties/GM) since I did crop breeding in the 70's, most maize in the UK (assuming that's where you are) was/is a forage crop. The climate isn't/wasn't quite mild enough to be commercially viable for corn.

    Greens would probably deprecate forage crops since they are energetically inefficient, (classically you get back 10% of what you put in, though in practice it varies a lot) greens are probably statistically more likely to be vegetarians, and cows are a greenhouse gas source, but that's the way it is.

    Edited by edlithgow on 03/02/2021 at 22:58

    E10 Petrol - focussed

    "Not sure what point, if any, you are making on your local maize"

    I suppose I was making a point that maize can be grown for purposes other that fermenting to make ethanol. As we we are in the cool wet north west they don't grow maize with large corncobs like they do in the hotter south which gets used for ethanol production. France is just about at the limit of domestic ethanol production for adding to road fuel right now and experiments are being carried out to find other sources of biomass for fermentation, barley and wheat straw for instance, but the yield of ethanol is not good enough to make it viable apparently.

    Edited by focussed on 04/02/2021 at 10:09

    E10 Petrol - SCSmith

    Another of these daft ideas that our gullible politicians have fallen for! When will our MPs engage their brains??

    E10 Petrol - galileo

    Another of these daft ideas that our gullible politicians have fallen for! When will our MPs engage their brains??

    Very few have such things, judging by the things they say and do.

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    Another of these daft ideas that our gullible politicians have fallen for! When will our MPs engage their brains??

    Very few have such things, judging by the things they say and do.

    Not just them, but also the so-called 'experts' of all hues that provide them with advice. That and much of a moral/ethical background to their decision-making and advice. Too many people with conflicts of interest with multiple fingers in pies and agendas to suit.

    Rarely do people do the right thing and for selfless reasons these days.

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    I realise this subject has been discussed before, but I strongly believe that the change to using ethonol (and the diesel equivalent) blends in petrol is a big mistake - especially at the moment when food security is more important than ever.

    We should not be giving over even more arable land over to fuel crops when they could be used to grow more food for ourselves and reduce CO2 emissions by way of importing less from abroad. I wonder if that has been taken into account by those touting the 'CO2 reductions'?

    E10 Petrol - alan1302

    I realise this subject has been discussed before, but I strongly believe that the change to using ethonol (and the diesel equivalent) blends in petrol is a big mistake - especially at the moment when food security is more important than ever.

    We should not be giving over even more arable land over to fuel crops when they could be used to grow more food for ourselves and reduce CO2 emissions by way of importing less from abroad. I wonder if that has been taken into account by those touting the 'CO2 reductions'?

    Now that electric cars are becomming more mainstream I think more renewable generation and storage should be the focus rather than tinkering with existing fuels for small gains.

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    I realise this subject has been discussed before, but I strongly believe that the change to using ethonol (and the diesel equivalent) blends in petrol is a big mistake - especially at the moment when food security is more important than ever.

    We should not be giving over even more arable land over to fuel crops when they could be used to grow more food for ourselves and reduce CO2 emissions by way of importing less from abroad. I wonder if that has been taken into account by those touting the 'CO2 reductions'?

    Now that electric cars are becomming more mainstream I think more renewable generation and storage should be the focus rather than tinkering with existing fuels for small gains.

    There's still a long way to go on EVs and batteries, some of which isn't even to do with the environment - a decent amount of the crutial materials in batteries are mined using people (including children) working for a pittance in terrible conditions.

    One big mistake by governments over the years (in most nations) was not to legislate to mandate decent percentages of roofs on new buildings - especially industrial/commerical ones to be covered in PV arrays connected to the grid.

    All those solar and wind farms on arable land or beauty spots would never be needed.

    E10 Petrol - Bolt

    All those solar and wind farms on arable land or beauty spots would never be needed.

    I think people are underestimating the amount of electricity needed once we are all electric, the industrial roof arrays will be used in the warehouse/factory to drive what they need and help charge there own delivery trucks/vans assuming they don`t used Hydrogen?

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    All those solar and wind farms on arable land or beauty spots would never be needed.

    I think people are underestimating the amount of electricity needed once we are all electric, the industrial roof arrays will be used in the warehouse/factory to drive what they need and help charge there own delivery trucks/vans assuming they don`t used Hydrogen?

    Where's this myythical hydrogen coming from? If you split it off from the Oxygen in water, you need the water to start with. Away from coastal areas, and parts of Scotland, we aren't exactly awash with the stuff, are we? At coast areas, we'd need delasination plants - which use huge amounts of electricity - to take out the salt first.

    I wasn't saying that all electricity would be generated by PV arrays on roofs, just that doing so would make a huge difference overall, including then not needing the eyesore generation systems or those put on arable land that we could use to be more food self-sufficient.

    I seriously doubt that we have enough raw materials for batteries to be able to have EV HGVs across the board any time soon, nor will any charging facilities or local grids be able to support them, given how much juice would be required - and very rapidly - to charge a lorry, especially refrigerated ones. ICE will be around for a good number of years.

    E10 Petrol - galileo

    All those solar and wind farms on arable land or beauty spots would never be needed.

    I think people are underestimating the amount of electricity needed once we are all electric, the industrial roof arrays will be used in the warehouse/factory to drive what they need and help charge there own delivery trucks/vans assuming they don`t used Hydrogen?

    Where's this myythical hydrogen coming from? If you split it off from the Oxygen in water, you need the water to start with. Away from coastal areas, and parts of Scotland, we aren't exactly awash with the stuff, are we? At coast areas, we'd need delasination plants - which use huge amounts of electricity - to take out the salt first.

    I wasn't saying that all electricity would be generated by PV arrays on roofs, just that doing so would make a huge difference overall, including then not needing the eyesore generation systems or those put on arable land that we could use to be more food self-sufficient.

    I seriously doubt that we have enough raw materials for batteries to be able to have EV HGVs across the board any time soon, nor will any charging facilities or local grids be able to support them, given how much juice would be required - and very rapidly - to charge a lorry, especially refrigerated ones. ICE will be around for a good number of years.

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    An excellent analysis if you like your "analysis" to come free of any fattening facts, basic physics, chemistry, or engineering.

    At all.

    A lot of people do. which may be partly why we get the politics we do.

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    An excellent analysis if you like your "analysis" to come free of any fattening facts, basic physics, chemistry, or engineering.

    At all.

    A lot of people do. which may be partly why we get the politics we do.

    Exactly what are you implying? Are you saying that my comments above were factually incorrect? If so, which ones, and please show how they are.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    An excellent analysis if you like your "analysis" to come free of any fattening facts, basic physics, chemistry, or engineering.

    At all.

    A lot of people do. which may be partly why we get the politics we do.

    Exactly what are you implying? Are you saying that my comments above were factually incorrect? If so, which ones, and please show how they are.

    "Factually incorrect" would require some facts (as would "excellent analysis" though that description isn't your fault) but, for example, "we are not exactly awash with the stuff" manages to be both vague and wrong,

    We are "awash with the stuff."

    Exactly.

    We are both on islands with very high rainfall. I walked home during Typhoon Morakot (one of the stupidist things I've done) and I didn't see land for a couple of hours.

    Awash with the stuff is what I was. Exactly, And I was very nearly drowned with the stuff, as many people were.

    To suggest that the supply of hydrogen would be limited by the supply of water in the UK is simply absurd.

    Its not as if making hydrogen from water on an industrial scale is a new thing in the UK either. Water gas (water reacted with hot coke to give hydrogen and carbon monoxide) was a big part of town gas (made in town gasworks all over the UK when I were a lad) until North Sea Gas came in to replace it. The availability of water didn't limit its production then and it wouldn't limit it now.

    Its likely that a near-term shift to hydrogen-powered vehicles would still use fossil fuel feedstock for the hydrogen, as is done now. This would be more efficient than using the fossil fuel to make electricity to split water with, which only becomes a green option when most of your electricity is from renewables, as it is in Scotland.

    Electrolysis of seawater (which might be necessary in some parts of the world) is tricky due to corrosion by the chloride ions, but there are new electrode materials that resist this.

    www.pnas.org/content/116/14/6624

    Edited by edlithgow on 05/02/2021 at 15:53

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    An excellent analysis if you like your "analysis" to come free of any fattening facts, basic physics, chemistry, or engineering.

    At all.

    A lot of people do. which may be partly why we get the politics we do.

    Exactly what are you implying? Are you saying that my comments above were factually incorrect? If so, which ones, and please show how they are.

    "Factually incorrect" would require some facts (as would "excellent analysis" though that description isn't your fault) but, for example, "we are not exactly awash with the stuff" manages to be both vague and wrong,

    We are "awash with the stuff."

    Exactly.

    We are both on islands with very high rainfall. I walked home during Typhoon Morakot (one of the stupidist things I've done) and I didn't see land for a couple of hours.

    Awash with the stuff is what I was. Exactly, And I was very nearly drowned with the stuff, as many people were.

    To suggest that the supply of hydrogen would be limited by the supply of water in the UK is simply absurd.

    Well, unless you want to make it using natural gas, water is all you have available. And natural gas ain't eco-friendly, is it?

    Its not as if making hydrogen from water on an industrial scale is a new thing in the UK either. Water gas (water reacted with hot coke to give hydrogen and carbon monoxide) was a big part of town gas (made in town gasworks all over the UK when I were a lad) until North Sea Gas came in to replace it. The availability of water didn't limit its production then and it wouldn't limit it now.

    The vast majority of hydrogen, which is currently used for industrial and commercial purposes, is made using natural gas, not water.

    Its likely that a near-term shift to hydrogen-powered vehicles would still use fossil fuel feedstock for the hydrogen, as is done now.

    You mean natural gas, which IS in very shoirt supply - hence the high price, especially as a LOT of it is used to generate electricty directly in power stations in the UK. We'd have to import even more from less than ethical states from the middle East or Russia. Wonderful.

    If the vast majoirty of ICE vehicles were converted to run on hydrogen, plus new cars made that were fuel cell designs, that would require huge amounts more hrdrogen sourced from natural gas, far more than we have available to us at the present time.

    This would be more efficient than using the fossil fuel to make electricity to split water with, which only becomes a green option when most of your electricity is from renewables, as it is in Scotland.

    Not sure what you're getting at here. As I indicated in my comments, I said that Scotalnd wasn't included because it gets far more rainfall than the rest of the UK and has a far lower population density, and thus demand for fresh water - which is what's needed to split off the hydrogen.

    Electrolysis of seawater (which might be necessary in some parts of the world) is tricky due to corrosion by the chloride ions, but there are new electrode materials that resist this.

    Hence my comments that having to desalinate the sea water was too costly in terms of energy use, as well as monetary. The hydrogen would also have to be stored safely in cooled tanks in liquid form (which is very enegery intensive) - piping it in gaseous form would presumably not be recommended for safetly reasons (never mind the logistics of doing this nationwide).

    Perhaps if you re-read my comments, you'd see that I said using sea water was currently not an option, although new technology has recently been proposed to get around this issue, but its in the very early stages of development, some years away from proving itself worthy of being commercialised.

    I'm unsure why you seemed to take so much exception to what I said, given your own reply above seems to have proved mine to be on the mark.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    Well, to avoid over expansion of the circles we are going around in, I'll just respond to a couple of the more obvious 'oles.

    The main point I was objecting to was your statement that production of hydrogen from water was, or would be, limited by the supply of water.

    In the UK.

    That, as I said, is absurd. I'd have let it pass, if it hadn't been described as "excellent analysis" by another poster.

    This was not your fault, but it is why I objected to it. I hope this is clear now

    Your new point, that "piping it (hydrogen) in gaseous form would presumably not be recommended for safetly reasons (never mind the logistics of doing this nationwide") is a variant on the usual "orribly dangerous " jive, with a bit of extra fact-blindness/dialogue deafness

    Whenever hydrogen in vehicles is discussed, someone starts banging on (PI) about how horribly dangerous it is, yet they have no problem with the MUCH more dangerous petrol, because they are used to petrol.

    In this case you managed to ignore the reminder (in the post you were allegedly responding to) that we were making hydrogen from water and piping it into homes all over the country 50 years ago. I survived that period without life-threatening incident, as did many of the older members of this board.

    Most of the logistic infrastructure for that was repurposed without modification for use with natural gas, and could be repurposed again.

    No one (AFAIK) is proposing use of hydrogen in IC engines in ground based vehicles, certainly not hydrogen produced by electrolysis, since that would be extremely energy inefficient. The hydrogen would be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity to power electric motors,

    It might be a possibility in aircraft, where the electric options weight penalties are severe. The basic technology for this was demonstrated for a Skunkworks U2 replacement (Project Suntan) in the late 1950's

    history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-6.htm

    Fun Fact Their first liquid hydrogen transporting semi-trailers had only a single rear axle because hydrogen is light. They had to add a second axle because this upset DOT officials at weigh bridges etc

    E10 Petrol - Bolt

    No one (AFAIK) is proposing use of hydrogen in IC engines in ground based vehicles

    I only mentioned Hydrogen HGVs as its going to be experimented with at some point this year, there is talk of duel fuel Diesels, with Hydrogen being produced at warehouse and giving a longer vehicle range, this is only talk at the moment afaia

    Apart from using it to power fuel cell vehicles, which seems the most likely, personally I really cannot see artics going along with a quarter/half load of batteries on board, imagine the loss of tons of goods due to carrying batteries, so I think either diesels carry on or fuel cell take over???

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy

    Well, to avoid over expansion of the circles we are going around in, I'll just respond to a couple of the more obvious 'oles.

    The main point I was objecting to was your statement that production of hydrogen from water was, or would be, limited by the supply of water.

    In the UK.

    Maybe you forget that we often have shortages of water in the UK (except Scotland) for good portions of the year, or we have deluges that cannot be stored. Flood water cannot just be pumped ad-hoc to non-existent new reservoirs.

    There have been several government studies/reports (widely repoerted in the media) that show we will have a lot more problems sourcing fresh water in the future whilst demand is already increasing, partly because of population growth and also because people are more wasteful of it.

    Things wouldn't be so bad had we received constant but smaller amounts of rainfall. But we don't.

    My other points were that:

    a) using natural gas rather defeats the object (being green) and takes supplies away from homes/businesses/hospitals who cannot just change to other forms of heat generation in quick time or pay a huge bump in costs because of more demand, and;

    b) the tech for using seawater is brand new, still in the very early stages of development and not proven for widescale use. Much of it also STILL has to desalinate the water, which, as far as I know, still uses copious amount of energy to accomplish.

    That, as I said, is absurd. I'd have let it pass, if it hadn't been described as "excellent analysis" by another poster.

    This was not your fault, but it is why I objected to it. I hope this is clear now

    Your new point, that "piping it (hydrogen) in gaseous form would presumably not be recommended for safetly reasons (never mind the logistics of doing this nationwide") is a variant on the usual "orribly dangerous " jive, with a bit of extra fact-blindness/dialogue deafness

    What on earth does that mean? As far as I know, pumping hydrogen gas is not particularly safe, and storing it at ambient isn't either (or easy, given how low density it is), this it can ONLY be stored as a liquid, which means cooling it down to -253degC, which requires huge amounts of energy and it to be stored in expensive high pressure containers.

    Whenever hydrogen in vehicles is discussed, someone starts banging on (PI) about how horribly dangerous it is, yet they have no problem with the MUCH more dangerous petrol, because they are used to petrol.

    But petrol isn't stored under pressure.

    In this case you managed to ignore the reminder (in the post you were allegedly responding to) that we were making hydrogen from water and piping it into homes all over the country 50 years ago. I survived that period without life-threatening incident, as did many of the older members of this board.

    Wasn't that towns (coal) gas, which only contains a maximum of 50% hydrogen, and, of course, that entire network is now used for natural gas and obviously cannot be used for both simultaneously. It also wasn't used anywhere near as expensively (numbers of homes and businesses) as natural gas is today.

    Besides, where's the money coming from to make and lay all those extra pipes - at a time when we've just borrowed $350Bn+ essentially to put us back where we were a year or so ago?

    Most of the logistic infrastructure for that was repurposed without modification for use with natural gas, and could be repurposed again.

    Not if most building are using natural gas boilers, some of which can be adapted to LPG, but many can't. We'd have to have two networks running simultaneously during the switchover, assuming they all could be converted (but not all in a few weeks/months). Again, cost/logistics.

    No one (AFAIK) is proposing use of hydrogen in IC engines in ground based vehicles, certainly not hydrogen produced by electrolysis, since that would be extremely energy inefficient. The hydrogen would be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity to power electric motors,

    I thought that was the whole point of using hydrogen - for fuel cell cars. Secondary use for heating/generating electricity for other uses, perhaps.

    E10 Petrol - Bromptonaut

    Maybe you forget that we often have shortages of water in the UK (except Scotland) for good portions of the year, or we have deluges that cannot be stored. Flood water cannot just be pumped ad-hoc to non-existent new reservoirs.

    There have been several government studies/reports (widely repoerted in the media) that show we will have a lot more problems sourcing fresh water in the future whilst demand is already increasing, partly because of population growth and also because people are more wasteful of it.

    There are certainly areas of the UK that suffer drought from time to time. Mostly places where water is drawn from aquifers which get low when we have two dry summers and or winters on the bounce. Every time it happens there's mention of investing to shift water over distances but then we return to 'normal' and it's forgotten.

    I guess energy from water wouldn't need to be localised and might not need the same level of treatment as for drinking.

    Not if most building are using natural gas boilers, some of which can be adapted to LPG, but many can't. We'd have to have two networks running simultaneously during the switchover, assuming they all could be converted (but not all in a few weeks/months). Again, cost/logistics.

    We've had statements today about the difficulty of converting Natural Gas heating to other fuels. The need to do so is based on CO2, so it's not a local issue like and particulates where densely populated areas are 'low hanging fruit'. We should of course have been on the case with ground heat pumps for new builds over a decade or so, along with photovoltaic cells on domestic roofs.

    Can't see how we're going to achieve the change required in the time scale demanded.

    LPG is mentioned, do you mean pro-tem while conversion goes on?

    E10 Petrol - galileo

    Maybe you forget that we often have shortages of water in the UK (except Scotland) for good portions of the year, or we have deluges that cannot be stored. Flood water cannot just be pumped ad-hoc to non-existent new reservoirs.

    There have been several government studies/reports (widely repoerted in the media) that show we will have a lot more problems sourcing fresh water in the future whilst demand is already increasing, partly because of population growth and also because people are more wasteful of it.

    There are certainly areas of the UK that suffer drought from time to time. Mostly places where water is drawn from aquifers which get low when we have two dry summers and or winters on the bounce. Every time it happens there's mention of investing to shift water over distances but then we return to 'normal' and it's forgotten.

    I guess energy from water wouldn't need to be localised and might not need the same level of treatment as for drinking.

    Not if most building are using natural gas boilers, some of which can be adapted to LPG, but many can't. We'd have to have two networks running simultaneously during the switchover, assuming they all could be converted (but not all in a few weeks/months). Again, cost/logistics.

    We've had statements today about the difficulty of converting Natural Gas heating to other fuels. The need to do so is based on CO2, so it's not a local issue like and particulates where densely populated areas are 'low hanging fruit'. We should of course have been on the case with ground heat pumps for new builds over a decade or so, along with photovoltaic cells on domestic roofs.

    Can't see how we're going to achieve the change required in the time scale demanded.

    LPG is mentioned, do you mean pro-tem while conversion goes on?

    LPG consists of hydrocarbons which have more carbon than methane (natural gas) so would increase CO2 emissions.

    Regarding pipeline infrastructure, in the early sixties I worked at a company which made large numbers of valves for the methane super-grid being installed to distribute North Sea gas around mainland Britain. This project took a number of years and cost millions at 1960s prices. Much of this network may need upgrading if used to transmit hydrogen.

    E10 Petrol - Engineer Andy
    Not if most building are using natural gas boilers, some of which can be adapted to LPG, but many can't. We'd have to have two networks running simultaneously during the switchover, assuming they all could be converted (but not all in a few weeks/months). Again, cost/logistics.

    We've had statements today about the difficulty of converting Natural Gas heating to other fuels. The need to do so is based on CO2, so it's not a local issue like and particulates where densely populated areas are 'low hanging fruit'. We should of course have been on the case with ground heat pumps for new builds over a decade or so, along with photovoltaic cells on domestic roofs.

    Ground (or air) source heat pumps are a useful alternative, but are mainly viable for houses - the former system needs a decent sized garden to install the 'slinky' pipes under the ground (bore hole versions are far more expesnive and are really only worth doing for large/commercial properties or newbuilds), the latter system is by far the cheapest, only requiring a suitable area for the outdoor unit(s).

    Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for existing flats, give the lack of gardens and/or communal services (most flats now have self-contained heating systems and don't have the service riser space or funds available to install communal heating systems, etc); similarly with a lack of easy/safe to access extermal walls to install the outdoor units for air source heat pumps.

    Flats with communal heating systems rarely have the space to retrofit new types of system that require large amounts of external space.

    Again, things can be better if planned for new builds.

    Can't see how we're going to achieve the change required in the time scale demanded.

    I quite agree. Many properties will essentially need to be knocked down and rebuilt in order to install the 'greenest' tech for heating, etc as they were never designed to take the very different designs now being touted.

    LPG is mentioned, do you mean pro-tem while conversion goes on?

    I was really stating the only alternative fuel source that modern boilers can accept with little modifications (probably just changing a control system setting during the installation) - my 2019 Vaillant boiler says it can run on natural gas or LPG - with the latter being less efficient.

    The manual doesn't say if it could (theoretically) run on other fuels, but if it could, I'm sure that the manufacturer would say so, even if it was qualified with requirements for some modifications to the equipment.

    Like with the E10 fuel issue, I think that the media and ministers/officials need to be very careful about 'being trendy' as they were when touting the change to diesel cars to lower CO2 emissions from the late 90s/early 2000s, which was shown to have some very serious downsides.

    Similar issues arose when 'woodchip/pellet' boilers were touted over a decade ago - they have a very narrow range of suitability for a variety of reasons and are often nowhere near as 'green' as promised.

    Alternative fuels or systems, for homes, cars, whatever, often look good on flashy websites from those touting them to make £££, but in reality they rarely provide the efficiency/carbon/pollution savings promised, and often lead to unintended consequences because they weren't thought through enough.

    E10 Petrol - Bromptonaut
    LPG is mentioned, do you mean pro-tem while conversion goes on?

    I was really stating the only alternative fuel source that modern boilers can accept with little modifications (probably just changing a control system setting during the installation) - my 2019 Vaillant boiler says it can run on natural gas or LPG - with the latter being less efficient.

    The manual doesn't say if it could (theoretically) run on other fuels, but if it could, I'm sure that the manufacturer would say so, even if it was qualified with requirements for some modifications to the equipment.

    Does it need modification to run on LPG?

    Given the range of cooking and heating equipment that was successfully converted to North Sea Gas in the sixties/seventies I'd imagine different burners could be designed for (say) hydrogen. That however is only one of the problems with a move to H2 as fuel.

    Like with the E10 fuel issue, I think that the media and ministers/officials need to be very careful about 'being trendy' as they were when touting the change to diesel cars to lower CO2 emissions from the late 90s/early 2000s, which was shown to have some very serious downsides.

    Diesel cars produce less CO2 per mile than equivalent petrols. NOx, SOx and particulates were all known issues at the time but the industry assured government that they were solvable. Sulphur Oxides seem to have been removed with low sulphur fuel. DPF's are a partial solution to PM but NOx remains and issue; adblue doesn't seem to be the solution it's advocates believed.

    E10 Petrol - Andrew-T

    Fun Fact Their first liquid hydrogen transporting semi-trailers had only a single rear axle because hydrogen is light. They had to add a second axle because this upset DOT officials at weigh bridges etc

    This story will only apply at sophisticated sites designed to handle extremely low temperatures - as I keep reminding, hydrogen only exists as a liquid below its critical temp, which is about 33°K (IIRC), much colder than liquid nitrogen. Those temps are just too extreme for everyday use in vehicles. For that a heavy high-pressure container is needed if useful amounts are to be carried.

    E10 Petrol - galileo

    An excellent analysis, if only politicians were obliged to learn basic physics, chemistry and engineering before being elected or appointed to positions of influence. We might then have realistic ideas proposed and implemented.

    An excellent analysis if you like your "analysis" to come free of any fattening facts, basic physics, chemistry, or engineering.

    At all.

    A lot of people do. which may be partly why we get the politics we do.

    If you want an exhaustive list of 'facts' (such as that 55kwH is used to produce 1Kg of hydrogen from 9 litres of water, according to the Clean Energy Partnership) this would be open to nit-picking arguments about the validity of the numbers.

    The general principles outlined, that renewable power of all kinds has practical limitations which are usually glossed over in government and green-campaigner proposals, are surely relevant and logical, if not, why not?

    Edited by galileo on 05/02/2021 at 13:59

    E10 Petrol - expat

    I wonder if that has been taken into account by those touting the 'CO2 reductions'?

    I suspect that an unspoken reason for using ethanol for fuel is to provide a hidden subsidy for farmers. When you consider the extra cost to motorists in reduced fuel economy it would probably be more economic just to give the money directly to the farmers.

    E10 Petrol - skidpan

    Fuel containing Ethanol cause issues for classic car owners. The fuel eats away at the rubber pipes turning them rock hard and they eventually leak and brake.

    When I fitted fuel injection to the Caterham in 2004/5 I had to re pipe all the fuel system, injection needs a very different set up compared to carbs. My pipe of choice was TFE hose from Think Automotive for 2 reasons. It is suitable for use with any fuel and the fittings can be installed at home with a roll of masking tape, a Dremmel, a Stanley knife and 2 spanners, no need for fancy swaging tools. But in 4 locations due to the space available and the inflexibility of the TFE hose I had to resort to traditional cotton braided hose. I did not envisage an issue because these 4 pipes were all short, on the low pressure side of the injection pump and the hose that I used had been fine with carburettors, it was said be be OK with "ALL" fuels.

    Wrong.

    3 years later I got a strong petrol smell so I stopped and checked and found that one of these pipes was damp on the outside. So I called off the journey and went back home, about 2 miles.

    When I got home I jacked up the car and when I pulled on the damp hose it snapped off at the union onto the filter. All 4 hoses were rock hard and brittle. Then I spotted that the carpet under the drivers seat was damp, it was actually soaked with petrol.

    Did some on-line searching and found a product called Cohline hose, bought some and its been fine. But I have set a service regime now to change it every 4 years, its only about £10 and you need to drain the fuel system to change the filter so it both jobs together for very little extra work. After 4 years the Cohline hose is still flexible. Its rated for E10 fuels so should be OK.

    Guess I will find out in years to come. But at least I check now.

    E10 Petrol - John F

    I don't see how a bit of alcohol would harm old engines. Back in the 1950s my father filled up with 'Cleveland Discol' which was widely available for many years.

    E10 Petrol - bazza

    It's more a case of it affecting fuel pipes and pumps adversely, as skidpan says. I worked in pharmaceutical manufacturing for a long time and we had to be very careful over which polymers were compatible with which solvents. It's surprising how quickly some pipework can soften or harden or corrode if comptability is incorrect. However, there should be no problems with modern or even slightly older, previous generation cars.

    E10 Petrol - skidpan

    I don't see how a bit of alcohol would harm old engines. Back in the 1950s my father filled up with 'Cleveland Discol' which was widely available for many years.

    The engine in my Caterham is not an old engine, its a 2004 Focus 2 litre Zetec.

    But

    Its the fuel pipes sold as being suitable for modern fuels that actually fail when they come into contact with modern fuels.

    If you read my post again you will see that I used 2 types of pipe, one was the Think Automotive TFE on the high pressure side which is described as being suitable for all fuels and so far has been faultless. The other pipe I used was a small amount of traditional cotton braided rubber hose on the low pressure side, this was also sold as being suitable for modern fuels but back between 2004 and 2008 it still failed even before E10 was considered.

    You need to choose your hoses very carefully. It could have cost me the car.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    Methanol and (to a lesser extent) ethanol also corrode the aluminium alloys that carburettors are/were made of

    E10 Petrol - skidpan

    Methanol and (to a lesser extent) ethanol also corrode the aluminium alloys that carburettors are/were made of

    People who raced using Methanol (where permitted) did indeed have issues with aluminium carbs and brass jets. Seem to remember that some used Magnesium cars (where available-mostly Japanese bike engines) but no idea what jets/floats etc they used.

    E10 Petrol - Andrew-T

    Methanol and (to a lesser extent) ethanol also corrode the aluminium alloys that carburettors are/were made of

    I'm not so sure the corrosion is caused by the alcohol, but by the moisture that it inevitably comes with.

    E10 Petrol - edlithgow

    Methanol and (to a lesser extent) ethanol also corrode the aluminium alloys that carburettors are/were made of

    I'm not so sure the corrosion is caused by the alcohol, but by the moisture that it inevitably comes with.

    I.m not sure that race fuel, perhaps held in drums and used pretty quickly, "inevitably comes with." water.

    Apparently ethanol corrosion is, or can be, a specific process which, counter-intuitively, is actually prevented by water.

    "Alcoholate corrosion is a type of localised corrosion mechanism that can occur on aluminium, magnesium or lead[17] in alcohol blends, such as bio ethanol. The water content in the alcohol needs to be absent or very low for this corrosion to take place. Due to the low water content in bio ethanol, this type of corrosion phenomena is also called “dry corrosion”.[5, 17-19]"

    www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:720728/FULLTEX...f

    E10 Petrol - John F

    You need to choose your hoses very carefully. It could have cost me the car.

    You do indeed. Many years ago a corroded fuel line on my old Audi 100 started to leak where it crossed near the rear wheel arch. I cut out the rotten length and replaced it with a piece of thickish hose from my scrap cupboard (off an old washing machine, I think) secured by a couple of jubilee clips. It soon failed, and I was alerted by people flashing me on a fortunately nearby dual carriageway. The one and only time a car had to be ignominiously rescued back to base on a trailer - family on board - much loss of face.