[NSW] Thoughts on Regular ULP ban?

[JustCruisn]

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 ethanol portion burns faster.
So it is a reduction of 3.4% over normal fuel.
When normal fuel is $1.469/litre the 10% ethanol needs to be $1.419/litre, or 5cents/litre cheaper to make up for the loss in efficiency.

I've noticed than when fuel was around $1.10/litre the ethanol was 3cents/litre cheaper. Now fuel is $1.469/litre the gap has lessened to 1 cent/liter.

I only use 98RON in both my cars. The Golf is chipped and wont run on anything less.
My 1.3litre Mazda 121 gains 20% fuel economy on using 98 over normal 91. From 7.8l/100km down to 6.2 l/100km). There is only a 10% increase in the cost.

Get rid of 91 altogether make room for more 98 bowsers so I don't have to line up.

[Chris259]

This came out the other day. They are discontinuing 91RON, and going to E10. There is no discontinuation of 95RON.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

[Diesel_vert]

Although me myself dont buy PULP quite often, was wondering about the general response in regard to the ban. At the moment its only for NSW and whether it reaches other states I'm not quite sure. To me this just looks like another profit making scheme by the government as it will be easier to fluctuate the prices of 98RON since its the only option for owners with Europeans and pre-1970 vehicles.

Source : The real cost of dumping regular unleaded

Umm... I think the mods should rename the thread title.

As for thoughts, I suspect anyone who is member of a European car forum (or a high performance Japanese car forum) couldn't care less about the phasing out of regular unleaded (91 RON), or the introduction of regular unleaded E10 (93~94 RON), since nearly all European vehicles are designed to run on either premium unleaded (95 RON) or super unleaded (98 RON) - it is very rare for a service station Europe or Britain to have regular unleaded.

Also, owners of vehicles designed to run on super leaded (96 RON) also probably couldn't care less, not to mention that if they're old enough to need leaded fuel in the first place, it would be safe to assume it wouldn't be compatible with ethanol.

[wai]

First, this has been brought about because the previous government mandated 6% of all petrol sold would contain ethanol. The incoming government has refused to overturn that decision partly because of lobbying by the ethanol industry. If the 6% mandated ethanol requirement is not met, the oil companies can be fined. Given that E10 is a 10% blend, it would require 60% of fuel sold at an average service station to be E10. This will mean that to avoid penalties, oil companies will either get service stations to shut down non E10 pumps or for oil companies to not supply non E10 fuel until the mandated requirement is met. Of course, the oil companies could choose to add the ethanol to PULP to meet the mandated requirement.

On to E10.

Ethanol has around 30% less calorific value than Standard ULP. With a 10% blend, this means a straight out 3% reduction in energy available and therefore a minimum 3% increase in fuel consumption.

Erhanol has oxygen atoms, and when it combusts,this oxygen is released. This has the effect of leaning the mixture by around 3.5%. This causes the combustion temperature to rise which might be good for unburnt hydrocarbons and CO/CO2 which is very slight anyway, but causes NOx to almost tripple. NOx is responsible for the brown haze or photochemical smog.

Ethanol has a higher octane rating. This simply means it has a greater resistance to detonation. Of itself a higher octane rating will not increase power. It will allow an engine designer to use a higher compression ratio to realise a higher BMEP and therefore power. This does nothing for existing engines.

Etnanol is corrosive. This means that any gum deposits built up in the fuel system could become dislodged blocking carburetor jets and fuel injectors. It can also degrade flexible fuel lines that are not designed for ethanol

E10 will only be mandated in NSW. If you tune the engine to use E10 by making the mixture slightly richer (and use even more E10), then when you travel interstate where E10 is not available the mixture will be too rich. This will result in incomplete combustion more pollutants and carbon deposits in the engine and catalytic converter.

All up, you will use around 10% more E10 than Standard ULP which is absurd because it is supposed to be better for the environment (or so we are told). You end up burning exactly the same amount of ULP PLUS a further 10% ethanol.

Many currently using Standard ULP will switch to PULP as they have already done in metropolitan Sydney where Standard ULP has not been available. The cheapest alternative is PULP 95, but there is nothing to say that oil companies will withdraw PULP 95 and only make PULP 98 available. This will place a much higher cost disadvantage than using PULP 95 and is also a tactic that can be used to increase the sale of E10.

So E10 does nothing for the environment. It does impose a cost on the consumer who has a vehicle that is not able to make use of E10. To top it off, there is no guarantee that ethanol will not be added to PULP because if the oil companies are to meet their mandated 6% requirement, they will HAVE to employ a variety of tactics or pay penalties. The cost of those penalties will then be passed on to the consumer.

Another absurdity of this whole situation is that the current ethanol producer in NSW (Manildra) does not have the capacity to meet the 6% requirement anyway. This means that to meet the requirement, ethanol will have to be imported, and yet again we will pay to employ people in other countries for no benefit. Looks like the federal disease has been caught by the NSW state government.

[JustCruisn]

The NSW state Government has backed down on the ban.
Premier bows to motorists on unleaded fuel

[kaanage]

Ethanol has a higher octane rating. This simply means it has a greater resistance to detonation. Of itself a higher octane rating will not increase power. It will allow an engine designer to use a higher compression ratio to realise a higher BMEP and therefore power. This does nothing for existing engines.

An engine with knock sensors and suitable ECU can run higher boost (if supercharged/turbocharged) and/or more ignition advance which produces more power when higher octane fuel is used. Or an engine can be retuned if it is not self adapting.

Fully agree on the rest, though. E10 is a political, not environmental issue.

[wai]

The NSW state Government has backed down on the ban.
Premier bows to motorists on unleaded fuel

So, the NSW government says that it has listened to the people and backed down on banning Standard ULP. Well, this is not quite what it seems.

The report says that it will not ban the sale of Standard ULP, but it will also NOT remove the mandate that 6% of all petrol sales across NSW must come from bio-fuels (in this case, ethanol). So in reality there is no real change in the situation. As BP has said, this still means that petrol companies will still have to withdraw Standard ULP and replace itwith E10, as they (the petrol companies) will still have to meet the 6% mandated limit.

So in the true spirit of Yes Minister, we have a nonsense press release by the government that from the headlines appears to accept the voter's will, yet when you look into the detail has changed nothing. The only difference is that motorists will lay the blame at the feet of the petrol companies. After all, the NSW government did not ban the sale of Standard ULP, it was those "dirty, greedy petrol companies that withdrew Standard ULP thereby "forcing" motorists to by the more expensive fuel or go with a fuel that while cheaper will end up costing them more in consumption and repairs.

Brilliant...

[elephino]

So, the NSW government says that it has listened to the people and backed down on banning Standard ULP. Well, this is not quite what it seems.

The report says that it will not ban the sale of Standard ULP, but it will also NOT remove the mandate that 6% of all petrol sales across NSW must come from bio-fuels (in this case, ethanol). So in reality there is no real change in the situation. As BP has said, this still means that petrol companies will still have to withdraw Standard ULP and replace itwith E10, as they (the petrol companies) will still have to meet the 6% mandated limit.

So in the true spirit of Yes Minister, we have a nonsense press release by the government that from the headlines appears to accept the voter's will, yet when you look into the detail has changed nothing. The only difference is that motorists will lay the blame at the feet of the petrol companies. After all, the NSW government did not ban the sale of Standard ULP, it was those "dirty, greedy petrol companies that withdrew Standard ULP thereby "forcing" motorists to by the more expensive fuel or go with a fuel that while cheaper will end up costing them more in consumption and repairs.

Brilliant...

That's called 'governing'. Nothing to do with actually running anything, obviously

[Hail22]

Governments are nothing but failed lawyers, union members, failed business owners who go out to the world for their "own" political interest not for the national interest.

Dogs is the only word that can summarise them.

[Diesel_vert]

Money talks... (especially if it's been laced with ethanol )

That is all.