False economy: E10 fuel isn't cheaper or greener

A fuel derived from plants might appear to be a cheap and green alternative but exclusive Drive research proves this is not the case. A fuel-efficiency showdown between the three most-popular types of petrol on the market concludes the ethanol blend will cost you more in the long run and may not even help the environment. Ethanol-blend fuels are about three cents a litre cheaper than regular unleaded at the pump but Drive found bills are higher overall because it burns less efficiently.

The findings throw into question NSW Government claims that E10 provides cost savings for motorists. The NSW Government has mandated the sale of E10 in NSW, requiring petrol company sales to include at least 2 percent ethanol. The mandate in effect requires companies to ensure that 20 percent of the fuel they sell is E10, a blend of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent petrol. At the time of the announcement last year, then premier Morris Iemma described the decision as a "win for the hip pocket when it comes to fuel costs for families". Our figures prove otherwise.

Drive put the three fuels to the test, driving three identical Toyota Camrys more than 2000 kilometres in a range of conditions to see which fuel drives your dollar further. The E10-fuelled Camry in the test cost $276.55 to run, while the regular unleaded version cost $271.56 and the premium unleaded fuel version, which cost, on average, 15 cents a litre more than E10, cost $285.54. The car running on premium unleaded consumed 9.06 litres/ 100km, compared with 9.41L/100km for the regular unleaded car and 9.81 litres for the E10 vehicle.

The test-drive route covered a range of conditions, from freeway driving to off-peak and peak-hour city driving. City driving exposed E10's efficiency shortcomings -- almost as expensive as using premium unleaded, despite the huge gap in pump prices. In the700 kilometres of city driving, our E10 Camry used almost 10 litres more fuel than our premium-fuel car. The comparative fuel bills for the three cars were: E10, $105; premium, $105.91; and regular unleaded, $100.33. Had we used thirstier six-cylinder cars or less-efficient used cars, the equation would probably have strengthened further in favour of unleaded and premium fuel.

During our test, unleaded petrol was priced at $1.30 a litre, which meant the three cents a litre less we paid for E10 amounted to a 2.3 percent discount. But our figures show that the car using E10 used 4.2 percent more fuel than the car using regular unleaded fuel. During city driving, the discount remained the same but we used 7.2percent more E10 than regular and 11.2percent more than premium unleaded. Since our test, the drop in petrol prices has made E10 more attractive, because a three cents- a-litre discount translates to a 3 percent discount if fuel is priced at $1. Our findings contrast starkly with the claims made by some petrol distributors.

United Petroleum general manager David Szymczak says overseas studies find the fuel consumption difference between E10 and unleaded can be as low as1 percent. United's E10 fuel has a higher octane rating (95RON ) than that of other distributors. "When you consider that you can get 3 percent to5 percent better economy just by having the right air [pressure] in your tyres, it's a very minor issue," Szymczaksays.

Caltex spokesman Frank Topham says the fuel-consumption differences vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. "It is such an individual thing with each vehicle," he says. "People should check it out for themselves and see if they find any appreciable difference." But the head of engine development for Porsche's Cayman sports car, Jurgen Kapfer, says there is no doubt E10 is less efficient. Kapfer should know. He's just been through the certification process for Euro V, the fuel standard about to be adopted in Europe. Unlike previous fuel standards, Euro V demands car companies use an E10 blend in their cars when they complete their fuel consumption test cycle.

Under the current standard, the published fuel-consumption figures are based on a test that replicates city and country driving using premium unleaded, or 95RON, fuel. That's why Porsche published two sets of fuel-consumption figures for the Cayman at the car's global launch in Spain recently. The first set was for the current standard, Euro IV, while the second set had fuel consumption for the Euro V standard. Using E10, the base model Cayman's fuel consumption increases about 3 percent, from 8.9L/100km to 9.2L/100km.

This is what Porsche's official press information says about the switch: "When homologating a car to EU5 [Euro V], the manufacturer must provide for a new fuel grade with a higher share of ethanol. "Displacing the same volume, such fuel has a lower calorific value than the fuel required for homologation to EU4. Hence, fuel consumption under the EU5 standard is slightly higher than with EU4 on the same carbon dioxide emissions." The translation, according to Kapfer, is that the two are line-ball on saving the planet. E10 emits less carbon dioxide but you use more of it, so the benefits are negligible.....

Source






Conservatives look to delay Warmist laws

The worsening economic downturn and deepening business concerns are hardening the Coalition's resolve to delay the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme by one or two years. In a message to business that the scheme to be unveiled on Monday could yet be watered down, the Government has made it clear it would prefer that the ETS passed the Senate next year with support from the Coalition, rather than the Greens and the two Independents. But Malcolm Turnbull and his emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb made it clear yesterday that they could force a delay because many businesses would be struggling just to survive the next few years, even without the massive and costly structural change of an ETS.

"As the impact of the meltdown has progressed ... almost a sense of fear has grown ... about how (companies) will physically handle what's ahead of them over the next year or two in keeping their business afloat, keeping people in jobs, doing what they have to do to maintain the strength and viability of their business," Mr Robb said. "And then to have the prospect of having an emissions trading scheme brought in over the top ... is adding to business uncertainty in a most profound way."

Mr Robb said the Coalition would not make a final decision until it saw the design of the Government's scheme, but he was being influenced by what he was hearing from individual companies and by the view expressed by Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout in The Australian yesterday that the Government should consider a delay.

National Party senator Barnaby Joyce has said there was no way he could vote for an ETS in the current economic environment, and has indicated he would favour an even longer delay.

Other businesses and peak industry bodies have been urging the Government to press ahead with its scheme in the interests of investment certainty.

The Government could also try to negotiate its scheme through the Senate with the votes of the Greens, Independent senator Nick Xenophon and Family First senator Steve Fielding. The Greens have successfully negotiated several compromise deals with the Government this year, and Greens senator Christine Milne told The Australian yesterday that when it came to the ETS, "we stand ready to negotiate again, our door is open". [The independents seem set to block that idea]

Source





Crooked Queensland cops again

They go by their own version of the law

Police chased a Gold Coast bikie to his death and then tried to cover up the illegal pursuit, a coronial inquest into the fatal accident has found. State Coroner Michael Barnes has recommended disciplinary action against four officers involved in the June 2006 pursuit, during which Craig Shepherd died and his girlfriend was seriously injured.

Handing down his findings today after a four-day inquest, the coroner said one officer may have "wilfully ignored" the Queensland Police Service pursuit policy and there was significant evidence he and three colleagues had "wilfully withheld" information from a police internal investigator. Mr Barnes was critical of the officers' failure to advise a pursuit was under way and to stop the chase once it reached a steep and winding Gold Coast hinterland road.

The inquest was told Mr Shepherd, 26, died instantly when his week-old high-powered Triumph Rocket crashed on Beechmont Rd after a pursuit at speeds of up to 150km/h. With his girlfriend riding pillion, the unlicensed and disqualified Odin's Warriors bikie gang member and two fellow bikers were returning home from a night at the gang's Tweed Heads clubhouse when they tried to evade a police motorcyclist at Tugun.

Mr Barnes said the motorcycle officer 'sensibly' gave up the chase but traffic officers Stephen Chapman and Hilton Buckley took up the pursuit on the Pacific Highway at Robina. Mr Shepherd ran two red lights and crossed double white lines during the chase, which wound through Nerang towards Beechmont. It was only when Mr Shepherd crashed that the police communications centre was told there had been a pursuit, Mr Barnes said. He said there was 'no doubt' the main cause of the crash was Mr Shepherd's failure to stop and his 'highly dangerous' riding. But Mr Barnes was critical of the conduct of some officers who he said had not complied with QPS policies and 'should be held accountable'.

He said that while police were not motivated by improper purposes, 'it seems their enthusiasm for the enforcement of the traffic laws may have led them into error'. "Traffic police are frequently exposed to the horrible consequences of dangerous driving and it is understandable that they might lose perspective about how to appropriately perform their functions," Mr Barnes said. He said Senior Constable Chapman could be guilty of misconduct for 'wilfully failing' to comply with the pursuit policy. Mr Barnes found Sen-Constable Chapman, Const Buckley and two other traffic branch officers had tried to conceal mobile phone discussions about the pursuit and may also be guilty of misconduct. He said one senior constable who had failed to stop the pursuit or advise police communications it was under way may also have been 'incompetent, negligent, indolent or careless' in his duties.

Mr Barnes said he would not make recommendations about changing police pursuit policies until inquests into seven deaths that occurred between June 2005 and December 2006 had been completed. Fighting back tears outside court, Mr Shepherd's younger brother Brian said his family was satisfied with the findings. "Hopefully, it will stop this happening again," he said.

Source






Too many uni students cry poor

By Ross Gittins, a Left-leaning economist

I like to think I care about the plight of the less fortunate. But if you feel sorry for everyone with a hard-luck story you debase the currency. So one of the groups I've never had much sympathy for is self-pitying university students. They're middle-class kids pretending to be poor and deserving, whereas they're actually setting themselves up for a life of well-above-average earnings. The few years of their life they spend having to scrimp and save won't do them any harm. It might teach them to have some concern for the genuinely needy.

Psychologists say we read less for enlightenment than to reinforce our existing opinions, and I found much to support my prejudices in last week's report on the private costs of tertiary education, prepared by the University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling for AMP. Let's start with the much maligned Higher Education Contribution Scheme. When the Howard government was increasing HECS payments we got used to reading scandalised reports about how the cost of a medical degree for someone having to buy their way into uni had blown out to almost $200,000. As is the media's wont, this was an extreme example. Turns out that for students graduating last year, their average total fee was $20,500. That's less than you'd borrow to buy a car.

The report estimates that it takes the average single male or female seven or eight years to pay off the HECS debt. Does that sound a long time? It's certainly longer than you'd be given to pay off most commercial loans. But that's a sign of the generosity of the scheme. You don't have to start making repayments until your income hits $41,600 a year ($800 a week), at which point the repayments start at $32 a week. The report estimates that it may take a male sole parent with two children as long as 14 years to repay his debt, while a female sole parent in similar circumstances may never get her debt paid off.

Does that sound bad? It's actually good. The point of the scheme is that your repayments are geared to your income, so that if you don't earn much - or don't earn anything while you're off minding kids - the Government will wait as long as it takes for its money. And, unlike any commercial lender, it doesn't charge a real interest rate while it waits. To me, the fact that sole parents fallen on hard times may never be required to repay the charge for their education is a virtue, not a vice.

It's sometimes objected that lumbering our young graduates with all this debt must surely reduce their ability to afford a home of their own. But the report finds little evidence to support this fear - which is hardly surprising. Why? Because the greatest impediment to owning a home isn't having to repay a HECS debt, it's not having the high salary that goes with being a uni graduate. That, to me, is the point. When you become a university graduate you're translated to the ranks of the privileged in our community.

Professor Bruce Chapman of the Australian National University estimates that, on average, the lifetime earnings of graduates are about 70 per cent greater than for those who went only to year 12. That difference averages more than $1.5 million, even after you allow for the earnings students forgo when they study full-time. And we're supposed to feel sorry for kids who can't buy everything they want for a few years while they qualify to enter the winners' circle?

It's not just more income that being a graduate gets you, of course. Graduates tend to have jobs that are cleaner, safer, more secure and more intellectually satisfying. They're far less likely to be out of work during their lives. And they ought to have had their minds opened to wonders of the world. It's these private benefits to possessors of a tertiary education that justify the Government requiring them to contribute towards the cost of that education. But the report finds our uni fees are third highest among developed countries.

Even that's not quite as bad as it sounds. Our fees are about a third lower than students pay in Japan, about a quarter lower than in the United States and not much higher than in Canada. What's more, few countries allow their university fees to be paid on the generous terms we do. With us, you don't have to pay a cent until you've graduated and are earning a decent salary, nor do you ever pay a real interest rate. The scheme was designed that way to ensure the fees didn't deter kids from poor families from going to uni.

But just how deprived are uni students? Well, two-thirds of full-time uni students under 25 live at home, so they're probably not doing too badly. Some of these would be eligible for the Government's youth allowance but most wouldn't because their parents' incomes are too high. More than 60 per cent of full-time uni students of all ages have jobs. Forty per cent work up to 19 hours a week, 15 per cent work between 20 and 34 hours a week and 6 per cent work full-time.

Full-time students under 25 who live in group households have earnings averaging only about a third of the earnings of full-time workers under 25 living in group households - $270 a week versus $820 a week. But, on average, the students spend $540 a week each, which is only about 20 per cent less than the $690 a week the workers spend.

That tells us two things. First, the students can't be greatly deprived and, second, they must still be being propped up by their parents even though they've left home. Sounds to me, if anything, it's the students' parents we should feel sorry for. But I bet the kids don't see it that way.

Source