classic33
Leg End Member
But the facility is being built for heavy utility vehicles, not cars.
The "distribution networks" include the electricity networks, so not entirely free of having folk pay for them.
What's with the fuel prices! And cheap whisky, apparently ...
- Thread starter PeteXXX
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The "distribution networks" include the electricity networks, so not entirely free of having folk pay for them.
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
I've been 'experimenting' with 3 types of fuel from local garages to see how my car runs and how many miles I get from their fuel. I put a tenner of E10, E5 and a tenner in from this place (not all at the same time obviously). I've heard folk say that E10 is ' cheaper but crap', but I got as many miles from it as the others and my car didn't seem to perform any differently between the 3 supposed different types of petrol. 🤔 Folk also say that E10 'isn't good for your engine', but my car did nearly 75,000 miles before I bought it the other week, so even if I only put the most expensive fuel in from now it, the damage has already been done if the 2 previous owners put E10 in while they owned it.
Last edited:
Some info for you:
https://www.holtsauto.com/redex/new...whats-changing-and-how-will-it-affect-my-car/
In general, for most drivers, the switch to E10 won’t cause much impact, and could in fact save them money. E10 is cheaper than E5, as E5 became premium unleaded, and E10 is the same price as standard unleaded petrol. The UK government states a 1% reduction in fuel economy using E10 vs E5, so the changes for most drivers won’t be very noticeable, and there should only be a big impact for drivers of older cars.
The article is worth reading. For older cars (pre 2011), E10 may cause problems over time, and super-unleaded may be a better choice.
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
Yesterday I went back in time to the late 1970's/early 80's. I bought £2's worth of petrol.
Ok, it wasn't 4 star it was E10. That's why I only put 2 quid in. I was near a petrol station that only sells E10 and with my tank being almost empty I didn't think I'd make it to a station 3 miles away that sells E5, so I bought enough of the stuff to get me to the E5 pump.
Ok, it wasn't 4 star it was E10. That's why I only put 2 quid in. I was near a petrol station that only sells E10 and with my tank being almost empty I didn't think I'd make it to a station 3 miles away that sells E5, so I bought enough of the stuff to get me to the E5 pump.
I can't remember if I posted this up thread, but in approximately 1974/5 I returned from Eire on the Cork to Swansea ferry with a virtually empty fuel tank in my Austin 1100 (petrol was cheaper in Wales than in Eire at the time)
It cost me £5 to brim the tank.
With an 8 gallon tank, I'll let someone else bother to work out the ppl for the 7½ gallons I bought.
It cost me £5 to brim the tank.
With an 8 gallon tank, I'll let someone else bother to work out the ppl for the 7½ gallons I bought.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
That seems expensive, I remember riding my Honda SS50 in 1976 & putting in 4 star at 46p per gallon as was cheaper than 2 star & all my mates telling me I'd kill the engine.
As to all the EV lovers, it's not the answer, it's unsustainable, pretty sure that if the maths was done correctly over the lifetime of a car there would be more environmental damage with EV if you take into account the full cost of the mining of the battery components, the shipping of them around the world twice.
It is also no use in commercial terms, HGV's will not work with them,
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Q7nAYjAJY
But all of this is just chipping away at the edge, what we need is a seismic shift in humanity, breeding programs to reduce the overall population, but it's never going to happen, we're doomed, we know it, but the money men just don't care.
Andy in Germany
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
Pretty much, although I'm not convinced it's population per se, because African subsistence farmers or Mumbai slum dwellers aren't generally buying large luxury items made of precious metals that need to be schlepped twice around the world. The problem is consumption, not sex.
Being cynical, I wonder if we in the west focus on that because it shifts the blame elsewhere for our economic damage.
It was the first petrol station by the docks as I couldn't risk going any further to find cheaper fuel!
chris-suffolk
Über Member
Read a report recently, that with the environmental cost of producing the batteries, you need to drive close on 100,000 miles before a break-even point against diesel / petrol. And that assumes you don't need new batteries for that mileage!
Probably not a great report though. It's notoriously difficult to calculate. If you were driving in Norway for example, your "green" break even would be closed to 8,000 miles - it tends to depend how you are sourcing your electricity rather than the green impact of making the battery - which is significant but still way lower overall (usually) then petrol / diesel. If you are in the states where you are using a lot of coal and oil to create electricity then the break even is much much higher.
You won't need new batteries. They are getting better and better. Tesla is working on a million mile battery.
There was a programme on PM Radio 4 a while ago, but I can't find it now, comparing all the pro's & cons of EV v ICE cars. I don't remember the full break down but it seems to depend on the mileage driven and age of ICE car traded in to buy a new EV.
That's just the financial pros and cons. The key benefit is having a habitable planet in 50 years time - the drive to green and renewable energy is essential to avoid climate catastrophe.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
I totally agree with you, BUT, there is no evidence yet to prove beyond doubt that the current crop of EV's do that, you have the basic harm in creating the bodyshell & the interior, much the same on EV & ICE. Then you have the damage done by mining the metals needed for the batteries, which do appear to be shipped around the world several times by ICE engines before they are given to the customer, compared with the manufacture of the ICE unit which does it's own damage.
We know that the ICE creates harm for the rest of its life, but what we don't know is the true harm of the EV, the EV itself may not be polluting in use, but the electricity has to come from somewhere, it's not mythically created. Just because it's at the other end of a piece of cable doesn't mean it doesn't exist, some will shout but I only use wind power, okay, but what resources were used to built the windmills, yes you could say the same about ICE & the refining of the dinosaur juice, but it has to be taken into account.
It's not a simple answer, for instance is it more environmentally friendly to keep your 15 year old diesel than it is to buy a brand new EV?
It's all well & good the Government raising the price to try to force people off the road when at the same time the Council's who are accountable to the Government are planning out of town housing estates, where there will be no schools, no shops, no public transport, no offices, no businesses to employ the residents, thereby generating more traffic for them to drive to work.
It's a big mess, I'll not see the end of the world, but I genuinely fear for my 7 & 10 years old grandchildren.
I also agree with this. It's why I posted that in Norway EVs are much more environmentally friendly than in the US - due to the way energy is sourced. Although that analysis does skirt neatly around Norway's ability to sell oil and gas to everyone else.
