Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p>

If the Goverment want use to become greener, why arent they pushing Bio petrol & diesel development ?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Because its a Government & Fuel Company Conspiracy, they dont want greener fuels, as greener fuls mean less tax<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Take Bio Diesel, totaly green, its made from rapeseed oil, which contributes to the prodcution of oxgen when growning in the fields & in use emits less Co2.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

They say RENEWABLE TRANSPORT FUEL OBLIGATION (RTFO) A POSSIBILITY why, should it be "possible", it is feckin Possible if they wanted it to be !!<o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> fuel excise duty and VAT rates (1st September 2006)</EM. p><> <o:p></o:p>



Fuel type <o:p></o:p>



Fuel Duty <o:p></o:p>



VAT Rate <o:p></o:p>



Typical per mile fuel cost <o:p></o:p>



Ultra-Low <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sulphur</st1:place></st1:City> Petrol<o:p></o:p>



48.4 p/litre<o:p></o:p>



17.5%<o:p></o:p>



11.3p (7.9p hybrid)<o:p></o:p>



Ultra-Low <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sulphur</st1:place></st1:City> Diesel<o:p></o:p>



48.4 p/litre<o:p></o:p>



17.5%<o:p></o:p>



8.6p<o:p></o:p>



Biodiesel used as a road fuel<o:p></o:p>



28.4 p/litre<o:p></o:p>



17.5%<o:p></o:p>



9.9p<o:p></o:p>



Bioethanol used as a road fuel<o:p></o:p>



28.4 p/litre<o:p></o:p>



17.5%<o:p></o:p>



16.6p<o:p></o:p>



LPG used as a road fuel<o:p></o:p>



6.6 p/litre<o:p></o:p>



17.5%<o:p></o:p>



6.7p<o:p></o:p>


<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

The number of forecorts selling it in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">uk</st1:country-region></st1:place> is a joke, 140 OUTLETS ! (not stations, this includes farm shops etc)<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

A few (mainly German and French) manufacturers have designed a range of vehicle engines that can operate on high quality B100 ? one example is the VW Golf TDi Mk4 (though, confusingly, not the Mk5). That said, a number of research reports suggest that many ?conventional? diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems.<o:p></o:p>

</o:p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,743 Posts
<o:p></o:p>

A few (mainly German and French) manufacturers have designed a range of vehicle engines that can operate on high quality B100 ? one example is the VW Golf TDi Mk4 (though, confusingly, not the Mk5). That said, a number of research reports suggest that many ?conventional? diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems.<o:p></o:p>
MkV's don't run on it because of their pd engines (I think). Also, I'd rather have no biodiesel rather than 'small' problems!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>

A few (mainly German and French) manufacturers have designed a range of vehicle engines that can operate on high quality B100 ? one example is the VW Golf TDi Mk4 (though, confusingly, not the Mk5). That said, a number of research reports suggest that many ?conventional? diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems.<o:p></o:p>
MkV's don't run on it because of their pd engines (I think). Also, I'd rather have no biodiesel rather than 'small' problems!
Some MKIV's use PD Engines......

Also adding to this was the car company in America (i forget which one but i am sure someone will say Oh i think it may have been Chrysler) built an electric car that was not only fast reliable and no different to drive at all in terms or speed etc to its counterparts but also had great range and was affordable. They built 2000 of these cars and a purpose built factory too build them in. When the government realized they bought the factory the blueprints and all 2000 cars and had they lot destroyed. Y? Because they new that these cars would fly off the shelf and bye bye tax. (I was told this by a friend who read it on a website so it may not be 100%)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
Some MKIV's use PD Engines......

Also adding to this was the car company in America (i forget which one but i am sure someone will say Oh i think it may have been Chrysler) built an electric car that was not only fast reliable and no different to drive at all in terms or speed etc to its counterparts but also had great range and was affordable. They built 2000 of these cars and a purpose built factory too build them in. When the government realized they bought the factory the blueprints and all 2000 cars and had they lot destroyed. Y? Because they new that these cars would fly off the shelf and bye bye tax. (I was told this by a friend who read it on a website so it may not be 100%)
It is true, I saw the documentary on it. The government (US and UK) got together with a certain oil company (cant remember the name) and bought all the rights. They haven't destroyed the blueprints etc, they have locked them away for when / if oil runs out or it becomes crunch time so that they can make the money themselves, instead of having the money taken from them in forms of tax loss.

All 2000 cars (though sure it was 20,000) were destroyed, even the re-useable, expensive parts totally crushed under the governments go ahead. These were brand new, ready to go, height of electronic technology, motorvehicles, far superior to what we know as electric cars now.

They were destroyed for one soul purpose....the tax loss would have been massive. The money lost from oil sales would have been massive.

The company in question was small in terms of vehicle production and must have taken a heafty sum of money. Who wouldn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,743 Posts
That electric car thing is totally true, I expect it's knocking about on google video.

My point (which seems to have been missed) was that "diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems."

That's lovely. I'd rather have a car running happily on diesel, rather than 'tolerating' biodiesel. "Without reporting significant problems." The fact they've written this implies that no significant problems were reported, meaning some minor problems were. I'd rather my car had no problems, not even minor ones.

I'm not adverse to biodiesel & I don't disagree with you, (and have used it a few times myself, noticing no difference), but I'd rather put biodiesel in an engine designed for it.

Oh, and you have to be very careful with biodiesel in winter apparently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
My point (which seems to have been missed) was that "diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems."

That's lovely. I'd rather have a car running happily on diesel, rather than 'tolerating' biodiesel. "Without reporting significant problems." The fact they've written this implies that no significant problems were reported, meaning some minor problems were. I'd rather my car had no problems, not even minor ones.
And on a larger scale I'd also rather my planet had no problems, not even minor ones. I guess it comes down to which we think is more important.

On another note, where exactly does the electric come from for the electric cars? Because if it just means that we need more power stations to provide it then it's not so much of an environmental benefit as it first seems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
True, but many power stations are clean renewable etc, and more and more are being built scrapping there fossil counterparts.  When the 3 gorges damn is finished in 2009 they will close approx 370 coal and 189 oil power stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
True, but many power stations are clean renewable etc, and more and more are being built scrapping there fossil counterparts. When the 3 gorges damn is finished in 2009 they will close approx 370 coal and 189 oil power stations.
which wont really make any difference.

china is building a new coal fueled power station every 2 days !!! Closely followed by India...

& the USA isnt far behind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,743 Posts
My point (which seems to have been missed) was that "diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems."

That's lovely. I'd rather have a car running happily on diesel, rather than 'tolerating' biodiesel. "Without reporting significant problems." The fact they've written this implies that no significant problems were reported, meaning some minor problems were. I'd rather my car had no problems, not even minor ones.
And on a larger scale I'd also rather my planet had no problems, not even minor ones. I guess it comes down to which we think is more important.
Still missing the point. Make an engine designed to run on biodiesel then it'd be ok. And on a larger scale, whatever these minor problems are, what is the environmental cost of rectifying them? (i.e. extra chemical additives for biodiesel on winter on top of the normal stuff for diesel, producing more consumable prts etc.) Is it outweighed by the 20% diesel saving (on average) per tank of biodiesel? Swings and roundabouts.

Oh, and thanks for implying I don't think the environment is not important - did I mention my name's George?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
As some of you may know, Im currently working for a large (in both meanings of the word) engine company.

I've recently been doing a lot of work with biodiesel, and I have to agree with you that there it has huge potential. Sure, performance (~10-15% power for B100) and MPG suffer, but emissions are cut (everything but NOx, but since B100 has zero sulphur content, so NOx aftertreatments are a go) and its renewable FFS!

There are various issues that have to be overcome before you can certify a engine to run on biodiesel, but none of them are showstoppers. The only foreseeable issue is the fuel used. You need to run on high quality fuels to be really safe (ie the stuff you can buy from petrol companies not fat from a chippy) and our government taxes the hell out of it as you've seen.

Lower the duty on the fuel, and more engine companies will have the business case to certify their engines to use 100% biofuels, and we can stop relying on fossil fuels. Pretty simple really isnt it!

Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,743 Posts
There's also the impact of distribution - it can't be sent through pipelines can it? (Something about it going cloudy and not flowing well at cold temperatures) Transport by rail/lorry will create an environmental impact of its own.

jace - I didn't realise that many power stations were being built at such a rate!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
My point (which seems to have been missed) was that "diesel vehicles may tolerate biodiesel blends of up to 20% without reporting significant problems."

That's lovely. I'd rather have a car running happily on diesel, rather than 'tolerating' biodiesel. "Without reporting significant problems." The fact they've written this implies that no significant problems were reported, meaning some minor problems were. I'd rather my car had no problems, not even minor ones.
And on a larger scale I'd also rather my planet had no problems, not even minor ones. I guess it comes down to which we think is more important.
Still missing the point. Make an engine designed to run on biodiesel then it'd be ok. And on a larger scale, whatever these minor problems are, what is the environmental cost of rectifying them? (i.e. extra chemical additives for biodiesel on winter on top of the normal stuff for diesel, producing more consumable prts etc.) Is it outweighed by the 20% diesel saving (on average) per tank of biodiesel? Swings and roundabouts.

Oh, and thanks for implying I don't think the environment is not important - did I mention my name's George?
Sorry, I didn't mean it like that - more that if we accepted the minor problems in the short term in order to increase the demand for biodiesel, maybe it would force manufacturers and the government to take it more seriously.

Also, what exactly is stopping the government from increasing the tax on biodiesel anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
There's also the impact of distribution - it can't be sent through pipelines can it? (Something about it going cloudy and not flowing well at cold temperatures) Transport by rail/lorry will create an environmental impact of its own.
That was on of the issues I mentioned. Taxed as it is, noone will invest in the infrastructure, because the widescale demand isnt there. Its the same with engines. Lower the damn duty and watch the ball roll!

Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,743 Posts
Sorry, I didn't mean it like that - more that if we accepted the minor problems in the short term in order to increase the demand for biodiesel, maybe it would force manufacturers and the government to take it more seriously.

Also, what exactly is stopping the government from increasing the tax on biodiesel anyway?
That's ok, I'm being stressy because I woke up this morning with a major headache!

I think they don't tax it because it's such a small percentage of the fuel bought at the moment. For example, look at how cheap diesel used to be because it wasn't very widely used amongst the car-driving public. With the advent of more powerful and economic diesel engines, demand rose and they saw an opportunity to make more money - subsequently the price of diesel rose above petrol and stayed that way.

Could be completely off though, just guessing really!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Some MKIV's use PD Engines......

Also adding to this was the car company in America (i forget which one but i am sure someone will say Oh i think it may have been Chrysler) built an electric car that was not only fast reliable and no different to drive at all in terms or speed etc to its counterparts but also had great range and was affordable. They built 2000 of these cars and a purpose built factory too build them in. When the government realized they bought the factory the blueprints and all 2000 cars and had they lot destroyed. Y? Because they new that these cars would fly off the shelf and bye bye tax. (I was told this by a friend who read it on a website so it may not be 100%)
The government (US and UK) got together with a certain oil company (cant remember the name) and bought all the rights. They haven't destroyed the blueprints etc, they have locked them away for when / if oil runs out or it becomes crunch time so that they can make the money themselves, instead of having the money taken from them in forms of tax loss.

All 2000 cars (though sure it was 20,000) were destroyed, even the re-useable, expensive parts totally crushed under the governments go ahead. These were brand new, ready to go, height of electronic technology, motorvehicles, far superior to what we know as electric cars now.

They were destroyed for one soul purpose....the tax loss would have been massive. The money lost from oil sales would have been massive.

The company in question was small in terms of vehicle production and must have taken a heafty sum of money. Who wouldn't.
Any info about this on the tinterweb?? ive had a look but cant find anything.

How long ago was this??
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top