EU Pushing Costly Biofuels
By Paul Homewood
Add another green tax to the list.
From the Telegraph:
Millions of British drivers could be forced to spend more filling up their cars after oil companies came under renewed pressure from Brussels to roll out environmentally friendly petrol.
The European Commission wants Shell, BP and Exxon to replace regular unleaded petrol with a fuel made up from more biofuels to help Britain hit renewable targets.
However the switch could cost drivers an estimated £80 more on petrol every year because it is less efficient and results in fewer miles to the gallon.
The switchover – which Brussels wants to be implemented in the coming years – could make millions of old cars redundant because they cannot run on the eco-friendly petrol.
The AA, Britain’s motoring association, warned the move would be a “price increase through the back door” and would punish families living in the countryside who have no choice but to drive.
It comes after a European Commission directive demanded member states ensure 10 per cent of energy used for transport comes from renewable sources by 2020.
The Conservatives are under pressure to ensure Britain meets the commitment by the end of this parliament, with ministers recently briefed on the topic.
Brussels wants oil companies to roll out E10 petrol – made from 10 per cent ethanol, a biofuel created from corn – to ensure Britain meet its commitments.
“Environmentally friendly petrol”? That’s a sick joke.
The Torygraph says the govt wants to challenge the EU on this, but they might just as well piss into the wind!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Was considering petrol for next vehicle due to possible EU persecution advertised lately
Might just stick to diesel
http://www.fuel-testers.com/list_e10_engine_damage.html
When it comes to the “tree hugger” facts don’t matter so long as their agenda is advanced. In their view, the earth was not made for the enjoyment of mankind but rather to be preserved from man who would defile it. If humankind were completely eliminated off the face of the Earth, that would be so much the better.
The Grauniad had a piece 4 years ago:
“Biofuels are driving food prices higher
(June 2011), 18% of biofuels now used in the UK are made from wheat and corn that are staple foods in the developing world. Yet just over a year ago, the UK hardly used either of these.
This demand can do nothing but drive food prices higher. And the demand is only set to grow. The EU alone is planning to more than double the amount of biofuels it uses in the next 10 years.”
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher
Except it is not ECO FRIENDLY at all.
A few years ago I would never have contemplated it but I will probably vote to leave the EU when the referendum comes round. This sort of lunacy needs publicising widely if and when the public debate takes off.
This is a more complicated subject than it seems on the surface.
Ethanol was first added to US gasoline to replace toxic MBTE for octane number (meaning more gas per barrel of crude) and then as an oxygenate to reduce pollution. The US blendwall is max 10% (e.g. Highest octane premium gas in LA); more makes no sense except politically in farm states. Modern Autos run fine on it, but you have to have no ethanol gas around for a decade or so conversion period. Finished in US.
It would be nice to have cellulosic ethanol, but there are only two plants in the US after 7 years of trying. Both are heavily subsidized and otherwise uneconomic. Bad idea.
So it is fermented from corn; 41% of the US crop last year (volume). Sounds bad, but everyone overlooks the byproduct distillers grain (whats left of the corn plus yeast after the starch is fermented to alcohol and distilled out.) Distillers grain is high fiber, high protein, and an ideal feedstock for ruminents (dairy and beef cattle). Displaces hay and alfalfa, allowing acreage shifts to grow more corn. That is what we have done on my dairy farm. Distillers grain is 27% by volume, so the net use of corn to brew ethanol for gasoline is (41-27) ‘only’ 14 % before taking into account the additional acreage shifts that are enabled. I would imagine similar shifts could be done in Europe.
Certainly would agree making biodiesel from Asian palm oil plantations is a bad idea in many respects.
South East Asian forests are being cleared to grow the crops that produce this bio-ethanol. Trashing the environment elsewhere simply to meet an EU target. I’m voting NO.
Here in France they have been selling bio-petrol for a while and at a discount of about 5 centimes a litre at supermarkets. Some pumps give no choice but some sell “traditional” 95 sans plomb as well as the new rubbish. My car averages about 46mpg on the old and about 42mpg on bio; about 10% better on traditional; I have checked several times to confirm. The discount is about 5% the last time I checked. Not only has it used valuable arable land to produce the fuel it is hugely less efficient. It also creates issues unless the fuel system is designed to cope with the bio part.
The reason I chose petrol was reliability, reports of FAP filters clogging and dual mass flywheels separating both costing up to or beyond a 1000€ to repair, combined with the original premium in purchase cost and shorter service intervals for the mileage I do in rural France petrol seemed the better option. As long as traditional 95 sans plomb remains available it will continue be the best choice for me.
Since when has bio-fuel been eco-friendly ???
Fly into Kuala Lumpur over the never ending mono cultured palm oil plantations and you will see what we are being feed (yes it is in huge amounts of processed foods) and feeding our cars! lots of these areas would normally be used for normal mixed crops for cheap local food supply so the locals loose fresh vegetables and income opportunities while a minority of rich investors get richer.
We have E10 in Aus usually a couple of cents cheaper than unleaded but I do not use it as 3 of my mechanic friends swear that it is no good for most cars even the new ones specifically designed for ethanol.
Coal “is” the most renewable energy source! All made spontaneously from insolation, H2O, and CO2 (C6H12O6) giving back 6O2 as also renewable. Currently this process is 5% less efficient than solar panels, but with no extra construction, installation, maintenance energy!
Coal is the gift of old trees, that have not caught fire yet! What a wonderful planet! 🙂
It’s hard to believe that the verdammte EU is still pushing biofuels.
ffs even Friends of the Earth realise they are a bad thing.
Out now!
Religions such as AGW are obviously the most powerful forces in nature. When the “believers” have driven us back to the caves they will insist that we do not use fire because it is environmentally damaging!
Capoprimo has found their real objective …… rducing carbon dioxide emissions by eliminating the human race.
Eco friendly fuel?
Have you studied the facts
And how we’re all being fooled
To placate environmentalists attacks?
Shame on our ignorance,
Shame on our fear,
A return to sanity
Must surely be near?
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/ignore-the-flying-pigs/
Corn ethanol has been shown to be break even at best in energy. It takes as much energy to produce ethanol as you eventually obtain. First you have to heat it to convert the starch to sugar, boil it, and then use energy to cool it to ferment. More energy is needed keep in cool for the extended fermentation period. You’re still only at 14% alcohol at best, and need to add more energy to distill it to 95% or so. Then there is more energy to process through resin towers to get to 99% alcohol needed to use as fuel. Even the energy required to process the spent grain is not insignificant, since dried grain is preferred and you have to remove all that moisture. Then there are the energy costs associated with collecting the CO2 from fermentation.
Late response as I saw it when on holiday. Some good comments. I recall Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Food commenting that the expansion of modern biomass – and especially biofuels – is “a crime against humanity”. The World Bank produced a policy research paper in late 2008 concluding that 70% – 75% of the food price rises in the preceding months was due to the drive for biofuels and their impact on grain stocks, speculation, and export bans. The price rises were blamed for food price riots in 47 countries and, many believed, the ‘Arab Spring’. While in the UK Planning Inspectors were approving schemes simply to burn palm oil in proposed electricity generating plants, even when told about related CO2 emissions, deforestation, habitat and species loss. Their argument? Palm oil is a renewable source of energy. See: Roger Fouquet: “Handbook on Energy & Climate Change” (2013)