I see that the EU is forcing through their desire for E10 fuel. At the moment we have fuel (whether diesel or petrol) that has to have 5% bio-fuel added. This came in a few years ago. When it was first muted, most commentators with an ounce of knowledge of the Internal Combustion Engine and the calorific value of fuels, knew that this would cause performance problems. And so it was proved. But not too much to give much cause for great concern. Now the idiots are pressing for 10% mix of biofuel and yes the experts have said yet again, that this will affect performance. Not only that, but it produces more CO2 than fuel without the biofuel content. All the info on this is here:
But it is not only the engine performance that is affected, the engine wear is increased as the fuel contains less of the detergent additives that keep the shite out of the engine. Plus, to get biofuel, most of it comes from palm oil which is grown in places like Indonesia. Here they have been ripping up great swathes of jungle to plant biofuel as that makes shit-loads of money and jungle doesn’t. Indigenous peoples get displaced, animals such as Orangutans lose their natural habitat, and the CO2 and pollution-sucking properties of the trees are lost.
Which leads me to a logical mind game I amused myself with last night and it goes something like this:
The EU, along with many other brain-dead organisations, believe we are doomed due to the rise in CO2 and concomitant rise in temperatures (which haven’t happened). So they talk about Big Evil Oil and batter them into submission through extra taxation and enforcement of greater regulation, one of which is the biofuel additive. (Well strictly speaking, it aint an additive as it replaces 10% of the fuel which should be there) Said biofuel has to come from Palm Oil, which is grown overseas and therefore has to be transported to the refinery, as well as the crude oil. Jungle has to be cleared to make way for palm oil trees, which then cuts down the CO2-sucking properties of the indigenous trees and therefore promotes a rise in CO2. The vehicle fuel is less efficient, so the car/lorry/bus uses more of it, and it also produces more CO2. The engine wear is greater so the vehicle doesn’t last as long, so more vehicles have to be produced, which makes more CO2. So the upshot of this grand idea is that the only people who are going to gain from this are the oil companies, through a greater requirement, and the car manufacturers, two industries that the EU loves to hate. The rest of us will have to pay more.
I do wonder if anyone within government, either EU or national, has the slightest ability to perform these simple logical progressions and realise that what they are advocating is pure nonsense. The whole process took me longer to write than it did to think through. So I can only assume that mullah is changing hands in certain areas to ensure these ‘initiatives’ get approved.
Which brings me to another point. Why do government term so many things ‘initiatives’ when they quite clearly are not born out of anyone using initiative. I guess it’s to make the drones think that it has been thought through.
If there are any flaws in my logic, answers on a postcard to the usual address please.