Fleet News

New ‘green’ fuel could cost motorists billions

The introduction of a ‘greener’ petrol to meet EU regulations could cost UK drivers billions of pounds a year and increase harmful CO2 tailpipe emissions.

The move to introduce E10 fuel, which is expected to happen this year, has been branded as "irresponsible" by consumer  magazine What Car? after it undertook the first ever real-world tests on the new blend of petrol. Until now, the fuel had only been tested in laboratory conditions and the potential impact on fuel economy had not been communicated to motorists.

The E10 fuel contains 10% bio-ethanol and is being rolled out across the UK as part of the Government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conforming to the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. This requires 10% of road transport energy to be from renewable sources by 2020.

However, What Car?’s testers discovered that E10 is less efficient than the current E5 (up to 5% bio-ethanol) blend of fuel across every engine type tested. This means cars have to use more of the new fuel, costing drivers much more each year.

Editor-in-chief Chas Hallett is calling for the Government to carry out comprehensive, UK-focused testing in order to better understand the financial impact of the new petrol.

"The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the detrimental effect of E10 on fuel economy is between three and four percent, but even our small sample of tests proves otherwise," he said.

"To lead consumers into E10 without fully communicating the significant impact on fuel economy, particularly for drivers least able to absorb the extra costs, is irresponsible."

What Car? tested E10 against E0 ‘pure’ petrol so we could directly compare our results with the US EPA’s. The cars used were a three-cylinder turbo (Dacia Sandero), a naturally aspirated car (Hyundai i30), a hybrid (Toyota Prius+) and a four-cylinder turbo (Mini Paceman).

The Sandero struggled the most, returning an 11.5% drop in economy. The 99bhp i30 was almost as bad, managing 9.8% less miles on E10.

It’s not just economy that is harmed by the use of E10 – CO2 tailpipe emissions also increased in every vehicle tested by What Car?, although the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership asserts that these increases would be partially offset by the renewable properties of bio-ethanol and the fact that the crops used to produce it absorb CO2 while growing.

Overall, the What Car? tests suggest that more powerful cars cope better with a higher ethanol content, leaving smaller cars – often bought by those on a tighter budget – worst affected.

Click here for fuel and fuel cards best practice and procurement insight

Leave a comment for your chance to win £20 of John Lewis vouchers.

Every issue of Fleet News the editor picks his favourite comment from the past two weeks – get involved for your chance to appear in print and win!

Comment as guest


Login  /  Register

Comments

  • Joe Lazio - 08/02/2014 01:36

    Hydrogen powered cars are now feasible, and both Toyota and KIA are coming out with units for sale respectively 2014 and 2015. Why are we still stuck with biofuel additives to fossil fuels?

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Ray Pholl - 08/02/2014 20:25

    The problem with adding ethanol, which is effectively alcohol, is that it needs a higher degree of ignition advance to burn fully and a straight forward petrol would go into pre-ignition, i.e pinking, if you tried to run the necessary ignition advance, so all that is happening here is that the 10% mix simply isn't burning properly, hence the increase in consumption and emissions. The 5% mix would provide some benefit though because it would give a slightly faster burn of the fuel when in an engines cylinder. You can run an engine on pure ethanol, however, you need roughly twice as much ethanol than petrol to produce the same amount of power, sl all the fuel inject jets have to be increased and again, a much higher level of ignition advance is required.....The fact the turbo charged engine, which would have sensors to knock the ignition advance back if the engine went into pre-ignition, proves that this fuel is not a viable option.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Patriot - 09/02/2014 17:05

    If the authorities really were serious about being green they should surely not be taxing the bio/ethanol element of the fuel that comes from plants?
    The whole CO2/global warming argument is a con on a massive scale just to raise taxes, and yet as reported recently improved economy to meet CO2 goals looks like reducing overall tax revenue; even the UN do not seem to support it.
    If only we had people at the helm who had some long-term vision and the balls to implement appropriate policies .
    Modern motorbikes have fuel tanks made from nylon. E10 is hydroscopic and attacks the tanks from inside and causes the paint to blister. Owners of classic vehicles will be £'s out of pocket because ethanol fuels rot older type seals and rubber pipes. BMW do not recommend using any bio-diesel in 2007 models.
    Thanks Eurocrats of Brussels once again.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
Compare costs of your company cars

Looking to acquire new vehicles? Check how much they'll cost to run with our Car Running Cost calculator.

What is your BIK car tax liability?

The Fleet News car tax calculator lets you work out tax costs for both employer and employee