PULP Ban? Did I miss something in that article? Or something about a ban? They are talking about not carrying "normal" 91 fuel and only E10, 95 and 98 (for the moment) .... right?
Personally I have only ever run 98 in my petrol cars since way back when because while it may cost a little more you tend to go a little further roughly equaling out anyway. (and all the other better/cleaner fuel things are nice too). It's sort of annoying that the news and papers only seem to talk about the cheapest fuel rather than the one a growing percentage of us really use... especially those with newer (and older) cars.
One thing that was interesting to note was the talk about emissions:
Now is that I burn 34% more fuel... or 10% of my fuel burns 34% faster meaning I'm really burning maybe 4% more fuel?The other point lost in this debate is the miniscule reduction in emissions. Litre per litre, ethanol produces about 37 per cent less C02 tailpipe emissions than regular unleaded - 1.51kg per litre compared to 2.39kg per litre.
But you need to burn more ethanol blended fuel to travel the same distance as a car using regular or premium unleaded.
Science tells us that ethanol burns 34 per cent faster than regular unleaded - which means the net benefit at the tailpipe is diminished.
I'd love to see more competition in that space, but then I'm not holding my breath either.
Bookmarks