Panic buying

[Andy Hayter]

6 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

A friend who was involved in building part of the oil pipeline network gave me an interesting perspective on the situation this morning. He feels it's not entirely coincidental that the shortages are happening after the introduction of E10 petrol.

 

For one thing, as E10 is less efficient than E5, motorists are having to top up more often.

 

For another, refined petrol is transferred from the refineries to a number of distribution centres around the UK by pipeline, where the different grades of petrol are made up and the ethanol is added. As the ethanol does not travel by pipeline but by tanker, switching from E5 to E10 means more tankers need to be used to take the ethanol to the distribution centres, meaning fewer tankers are available to distribute the petrol.

 

Sounds like a good story except that E10 is "up to 10% ethanol" so you could sell E5 quite legitimately as E10.  So sorry I don't believe it.

[PhilJ W]

The last two times I filled my petrol tank up it was with E10. The drop off in performance and the increase in consumption was quite noticeable. I normally fill up when the gauge drops to a quarter but as I was going to do a fair few miles this weekend I topped up even though the tank was two thirds full. But this time instead of E10 I used premium unleaded. The change was palpable, it ran even better than on the old E5.

[Gibbo675]

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I imagine what is actually happening is the localised shortages are being spun by the likes of the MSM into national shortages, just like with the fuel issue.

 

Can't help but think it is part of some concerted campaign by the MSM to get rid of Boris, they don't appear to like him and creating national panic serves their objective as well as bringing in readership and therefore advertising revenue.

 

It is quite clear that there are challenges in supply chains caused by a mix of Brexit, lockdowns and the general disruption around the world from Covid that will take time to recover.  Internationally, Russia does appear to be using gas supply restriction as a means to get a new pipeline agreed which has rather exposed our dependence on gas and that the only way is up when it comes to the cost of powering and heating our country.

 

7 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Woodenhead,

 

The long term contract gas prices for Nordsteam II were considerably lower than spot prices are currently, however the USA insisted upon sanctions upon its building which the Russians did not challenge. The result effectively terminating the contracts at the original lower prices with non completion through third party as the reason. The pipeline was not finished in time because of the USA and the supply contracts fell through as a result.

 

Should Europe now wish to buy gas from Russia it will have to do so at the new spot prices set via the exchange in St Petersburg at approximately four times the price of the long term contacts that Nordsteam II promised before the sanctions imposed by the USA. Conveniently even Gazprom's own storage facilities in Europe have been run down.

 

Additionally, high gas prices make sending LNG from the USA to Europe, including Britain cost effective which is something that the MSM very rarely mentions for some reason.

 

Снова обманули !

 

Гиббо.

Hi Folks,

 

Here Is Alexander Mercouris explaining it all to much greater detail than I am able to:

 

 

 

Gibbo.

[monkeysarefun]

We've had E10 here in NSW since the early 2000s. Because of the mileage hit no one really uses it any more except for 2 stroke and maybe  arson.

Edited October 10, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The last two times I filled my petrol tank up it was with E10. The drop off in performance and the increase in consumption was quite noticeable. I normally fill up when the gauge drops to a quarter but as I was going to do a fair few miles this weekend I topped up even though the tank was two thirds full. But this time instead of E10 I used premium unleaded. The change was palpable, it ran even better than on the old E5.

Hi Phil,

 

I'd be more bothered about the increased ethanol content rotting the fuel system of your car's engine from the inside out.

 

Gibbo.

[rockershovel]

On 08/03/2020 at 18:24, Gwiwer said:

In other news ..... 

 

Toilet roll manufacturers go out of business in April when no-one is buying their product any more.  Directors cite stockpiling as the reason ..... 

No they don't. They lay off all their agency packers for 2 weeks and award themselves a bonus (this may sound cynical but it happened to a friend of my daughters recently, albeit the product wasn't bogroll)

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The last two times I filled my petrol tank up it was with E10. The drop off in performance and the increase in consumption was quite noticeable. I normally fill up when the gauge drops to a quarter but as I was going to do a fair few miles this weekend I topped up even though the tank was two thirds full. But this time instead of E10 I used premium unleaded. The change was palpable, it ran even better than on the old E5.

 

This is to be expected - the more 'pure' the fuel the better the internal combustion runs (which is why the performance of the Merlin Engine in WW2 was steadily improved as we got better at refining aviation fuel).

 

The whole point of adding bio-Ethanol is to help offset some of the carbon dioxide emissions by using a fluid made from plants which can absorb said CO2 while they are growing. Nobody has pretended it won't have some side effects in terms of mpg, rather its a case that in the overall scheme of things they are manageable and if we are serious about tackling climate change then people are going to have to get used to paying more one way or another.

 

It should also be noted that E5 fuels MUST command a price premium under Government rules so its entirely possible that the gains make in terms of distance travelled between fill ups is negated by the extra cost of filling up with E5 over E10 fuel.

Edited October 10, 2021 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

25 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Phil,

 

I'd be more bothered about the increased ethanol content rotting the fuel system of your car's engine from the inside out.

 

Gibbo.

So in a few years you have to swap to electric....

[rockershovel]

Read another article in the industry press the other day, pointing the finger at BP over-extending their diesel supplies as the main culprit. 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, rockershovel said:

No they don't. They lay off all their agency packers for 2 weeks and award themselves a bonus (this may sound cynical but it happened to a friend of my daughters recently, albeit the product wasn't bogroll)

 

Thats why the business loves contracting out so much and has lobbied Governments to make it very easy to do so over the past four decades.

 

"Easy to Hire, Easy to fire" philosophy is all very well when the going is good - but when things get difficult, like say in the aftermath of a global pandemic then inevitably its the lower paid agency workers who suffer the most.

 

It wouldn't happen anything like as much if over the past 4 decades our Government hadn't been (i) so money obsessed with worshipping the God of the stock market  when devising policy and (ii) appealed to peoples greed at election time with the 'low tax low regulation = lots of cash for you' philosophy.

 

 

[rockershovel]

Drove from Ipswich to Warwick over the weekend, no significant supply problems on A14 or A46. Sidecar drivers from Cornwall at Warwick today. Club members report ongoing problems in Greater London area.

[Andy Hayter]

But if people turn against E fuels as poor performers and more expensive, then the argument is lost forever.    You could the drop the price 5p or even 10p/litre below standard fuel and the ingrained "it's cr@p" will not wash.  If introduced at a lower price then ordinary people might just buy into it.

[monkeysarefun]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

It should also be noted that E5 fuels MUST command a price premium under Government rules so its entirely possible that the gains make in terms of distance travelled between fill ups is negated by the extra cost of filling up with E5 over E10 fuel.

 That was the idea here too, but the govt were too stingy, motoring organisations calculated that the yearly cost benefit in using E10 over standard fuel, once the reduced mileage was taken into account was about $200 per year.  And you had to go to the servo more often.

 

We also dicked around with E85 for a while, which was going to be our wonder fuel given we have so much sugar cane etc to make it with. Holden (GM) retuned their V6 and V8 engines to run on it but no one took it up really, given pumps were few and far between and usually locked to stop non-complaint cars being filled with it (cos it was quite a bit cheaper). Was a pain having to go in and get the key. My ute will run on it and is meant to give quite a performance boost but I've never given it a go.

[rockershovel]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats why the business loves contracting out so much and has lobbied Governments to make it very easy to do so over the past four decades.

 

"Easy to Hire, Easy to fire" philosophy is all very well when the going is good - but when things get difficult, like say in the aftermath of a global pandemic then inevitably its the lower paid agency workers who suffer the most.

 

It wouldn't happen anything like as much if over the past 4 decades our Government hadn't been (i) so money obsessed with worshipping the God of the stock market  when devising policy and (ii) appealed to peoples greed at election time with the 'low tax low regulation = lots of cash for you' philosophy.

 

 

The other problem with the "flexible labour force" is that a more effective means of destroying skills training and development, would be hard to devise. It only works for unskilled or semiskilled workers....

[RJS1977]

Incidentally, whilst I don't know what the drop-off in mileage is for using E10 rather than E5, I've just done a quick 'back of an envelope' calculation  which suggests that a 6% drop in mileage would result in an increase in carbon emissions owing to the need to fill up more often and thereby burn more petrol.

 

If a motorist did 100mpg (figure chosen for illustrative purposes only) on E5 and only 94mpg on E10, this would result in an increase in 6% in the amount of fuel needed to travel the same distance. 

 

A car with a 100L tank (again illustrative figure only) full of E5 contains 95L of petrol and 5L of ethanol.

A car with a 100L tank of E10 contains 90L of petrol and 10L of ethanol. 

 

Driver A drives a particular distance and uses the full contents of his tank.

Driver B drives the same distance but needs to top up en route and uses 6% more fuel.

6% of 90 is 5.74 so driver B has used 95.74L of petrol to travel the same distance driver A did on 95L.

[phil-b259]

58 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Phil,

 

I'd be more bothered about the increased ethanol content rotting the fuel system of your car's engine from the inside out.

 

Gibbo.

 

It depends on what the engine components made from.

 

If you know the engine is going to be burning ethanol then engineers will easily be able to design it to do so without "rotting the engine from inside out" as you put it!

 

My understanding is the main issues with high Ethanol fuels are with some of the flexible fuel feed pipes where, with certain types, a high ethanol content effectively starts to break down the rubber / plasticiser over time. It can also cause issues with some types of head gaskets - but again this is largely dependent on what they are made from.

 

This is way Governments need to communicate the intention to change fuel composition well in advance - the motor industry was told about the most recent move over a decade ago so all currently produced designs should have zero problems.

 

Cars more than a decade old may (note that is not a 'will') have problems and it is recommended to drain the engine if its going to be left unused for months on end to try and prevent the static fuel from starting to dissolve the flexible fuel lines.

Edited October 10, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

But if people turn against E fuels as poor performers and more expensive, then the argument is lost forever.    You could the drop the price 5p or even 10p/litre below standard fuel and the ingrained "it's cr@p" will not wash.  If introduced at a lower price then ordinary people might just buy into it.

 

It would have to be pretty crap fuel for that to happen!

 

Motor manufacturers have had over a decades notice that E10 is coming and all their recent products will work fine on it due to the ability of computerised Engine management systems to adjust the mix on the fly and ethanol resistant pipework + gaskets.

 

Also as is amply demonstrated the biggest factor in the majority of purchasing decisions by the British public is PRICE - its why Supermarkets are very keen to advertise how cheap they are and 'standard' food still outsells Organic equivalents.

 

E10 fuel will always be cheaper than E10 (I think the Government have mandated the difference must be 5p or more per litre) so unless you are particularly picky (or have a vhicle more than a decade old) then you will most likely opt for E10.

 

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Incidentally, whilst I don't know what the drop-off in mileage is for using E10 rather than E5, I've just done a quick 'back of an envelope' calculation  which suggests that a 6% drop in mileage would result in an increase in carbon emissions owing to the need to fill up more often and thereby burn more petrol.

 

If a motorist did 100mpg (figure chosen for illustrative purposes only) on E5 and only 94mpg on E10, this would result in an increase in 6% in the amount of fuel needed to travel the same distance. 

 

A car with a 100L tank (again illustrative figure only) full of E5 contains 95L of petrol and 5L of ethanol.

A car with a 100L tank of E10 contains 90L of petrol and 10L of ethanol. 

 

Driver A drives a particular distance and uses the full contents of his tank.

Driver B drives the same distance but needs to top up en route and uses 6% more fuel.

6% of 90 is 5.74 so driver B has used 95.74L of petrol to travel the same distance driver A did on 95L.

 

All very true - but I find it hard to believe that this would not have been thought through! Yes the Government might be useless but environmental pressure groups are normally pretty good at exposing 'gesture politics' and they all seem to welcome the initiative.

 

It would certainly be interesting to conduct some scientific trials to test it though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[monkeysarefun]

6 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

All very true - but I find it hard to believe that this would not have been thought through! Yes the Government might be useless but environmental pressure groups are normally pretty good at exposing 'gesture politics' and they all seem to welcome the initiative.

 

It would certainly be interesting to conduct some scientific trials to test it though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But nothing gets away from the fact that E10 makes for a disappointing drive. In the 15 or so years its been available here, after the initial "give it a go" period when it was first rolled out I've only ever used it when I get a new car just to see if that one will run any better. They never do. Any  car feels sluggish and unresponsive , mileage drops, theres more time spent at the servo, its not worth any slight savings.

 

The only time I ever use it now is when I'm topping up a hire car prior to returning it. 

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Phil,

 

I'd be more bothered about the increased ethanol content rotting the fuel system of your car's engine from the inside out.

 

Gibbo.

Not a problem with my car. I checked that when it was announced that E10 was coming on stream.

 

[phil-b259]

Just now, monkeysarefun said:

 

But nothing gets away from the fact that E10 makes for a disappointing drive.

 

Again, this is not unexpected. I refer you to my earlier statement that pretty with much every internal combustion engine ever built the more 'pure' / refined the fuel the better the performance it gives.

 

However the vast majority of motor vehicle drivers on the road (me included) are not interested in performance per say - the motor vehicle exist to transport them from A to B. This is particularly true of the thousands of vehicles which spend their lives pootling round town as opposed to those who spend long periods driving or negotiate taxing terrain. For such people, and those who care about the harm our species is doing to the planet a slightly 'sluggish' performance is preferable to continuing to do nothing with regards CO2 emissions.

[monkeysarefun]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

However the vast majority of motor vehicle drivers on the road (me included) are not interested in performance per say - the motor vehicle exist to transport them from A to B.

Im not talking about tearing off at warp speed  when the lights go green, its just everyday motoring incidents that highlight the difference -  safe overtaking becomes a bit more hairy, pulling into traffic and accelerating to  traffic speed becomes a bit more hairy.....   

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Im not talking about tearing off at warp speed  when the lights go green, its just everyday motoring incidents that highlight the difference -  safe overtaking becomes a bit more hairy, pulling into traffic and accelerating to  traffic speed becomes a bit more hairy.....   

 

I didn't imply you were!

 

I simply don't care that I'm a tad slower away from a set of traffic light, that have to limit my overtaking if the gaps are too small,  etc - and I bet the majority of motorists don't care too much either.

 

For the (admittedly sizeable) minority that do, high performance fuels will still available at higher prices (though in an ideal world the price differential should be steadily increasing to reflect that it will increasingly be a personal choice as older cars unable to use E10 continue to be replaced with newer models that can).

 

 

 

 

[monkeysarefun]

54 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I didn't imply you were!

 

I simply don't care that I'm a tad slower away from a set of traffic light, that have to limit my overtaking if the gaps are too small,  etc - and I bet the majority of motorists don't care too much either.

 

For the (admittedly sizeable) minority that do, high performance fuels will still available at higher prices (though in an ideal world the price differential should be steadily increasing to reflect that it will increasingly be a personal choice as older cars unable to use E10 continue to be replaced with newer models that can).

 

 

 

 

 

Thats all cool. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it , I use it in my mower.... Just that there are things you've got to put up with if you do. Like you said, there are currently still  alternatives. 

 

On its good side its meant to cut emissions by 30% but I've not been able to find recent independent studies here  that back this up, just old promotional bumf from the government and oil companies.

 

And it makes use of much of our agricultural waste products, particularly  sugar cane  and Sorghum waste.  As I mentioned  earlier, we did have hopes here of developing  85% ethanol as a viable fuel but take up was too slow due pretty much to the fact that only Holden that grabbed the ball and ran with it as far as making affordable cars that could use it safely, and the lack of users meant that it became a chicken and egg thing where users couldn't find it so didnt take it up, and oil companies didnt roll out more pumps  because users werent using it. 

 

 It is the mandated fuel for our V8 Supercar race series, but its hard to find on the street these days. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[raymw]

In case you're wondering why we are having to use ethanol in our fuel