1 hour ago, Evolution13 said:

I am paying 202.7 pence a litre for HVO and it worth every penny extra over derv or premium derv. Smooth running , less smelly and improved mpg. Gulf EvoUltra. Limited availability in Scotland as far as filling stations. But not at Trade / Bunkered suppliers.

What sort of mpg improvement are you seeing?

With HVO being able to reduce the CO₂ by upto 90%, I wonder if by declaring that your vehicle is running 100% on HVO, if you could get the VED reduced to reflect that of a comparable certified reduced CO₂. vehicle?

17 hours ago, lol-lol said:

EV drivers, newspapers etc, constantly quote the Gridserve 90p per KWh charge price,and as the dominate motorway services are used to "show" how expensive EV charging can be.

But thats only the same as the way petrol or diesel prices are quoted too, with the numbers often reflecting the highest prices per litre in remote rural areas, motorway services, or London which often aren't reflective of what the vast majority of people actually pay.

53 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

What sort of mpg improvement are you seeing?

With HVO being able to reduce the CO₂ by upto 90%, I wonder if by declaring that your vehicle is running 100% on HVO, if you could get the VED reduced to reflect that of a comparable certified reduced CO₂. vehicle?

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

What sort of mpg improvement are you seeing?

With HVO being able to reduce the CO₂ by upto 90%, I wonder if by declaring that your vehicle is running 100% on HVO, if you could get the VED reduced to reflect that of a comparable certified reduced CO₂. vehicle?

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

What sort of mpg improvement are you seeing?

With HVO being able to reduce the CO₂ by upto 90%, I wonder if by declaring that your vehicle is running 100% on HVO, if you could get the VED reduced to reflect that of a comparable certified reduced CO₂. vehicle?

CO2 production would be very similar.

What might be different is that 90% of the carbon released has come from "renewable" ie organic source. Airline are moving thus way as well as F1 etc.

Still adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide and adding to the global warming that we are seeing the consequences in weather change, fires, crop reductions etc etc.

The solar eclipse power down results are in with Octopus and I have earned an hour of free electricity between 1300 and 1400 ie when our local fusion generator, Sol, is at its peak without the Earth's moon interjecting.

Will try and download around 16 KWh of lecky in that spell.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by lol-lol

@Graham Butcher local short trips from home for maybe just 5-15 miles, 30 mph - 60 mph it is 23 mpg on Tesco, Asda or Gulf diesel. 25-27 on BP Supreme diesel which is 10 pence a litre 5 or 10 miles away from my local Shell V-power. There are 2 2 miles apart and the one at the A9 side is a couple of pence cheaper. The HVO local same price as that V-power local. HVO has been constant showing 30-32mpg. Arbroath or Dundee much lower prices for Esso or BP premium diesel. PS, it was like Rolling Coal on Tesco or Asda diesel, but I might just have blown out the cobwebs and any carbon build up now from when I got the 2.4 diesel no SCR / Adblue with 113,000 miles. Done 2,000 miles since May.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Evolution13

21 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

CO2 production would be very similar.

What might be different is that 90% of the carbon released has come from "renewable" ie organic source. Airline are moving thus way as well as F1 etc.

Still adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide and adding to the global warming that we are seeing the consequences in weather change, fires, crop reductions etc etc.

Nope, nice try but no cigar. I try to verify things first, and the claims that you're questioning as mine are taken directly from an HVO supplier's website. HVO Fuel FAQ – What is HVO & Who can use it? | Crown Oil

This time I still have their website on my screen and also saved in my favourites, so I can revisit whenever I like; this has not always happened in the past.

Below is a screenshot from part of their website, and if you actually do click on that link, you can actually verify for yourself that I'm claiming something that has excellent backup proof. I don't go in for all that TLDNR BS myself; like I've always claimed, I have an open mind, and I can be swayed to change my mind if there is sufficient proof and the provider of the proof has no vested interest in achieving a particular outcome.

I admit that on THIS occasion that website does indeed have a vested interest in getting people to believe what they say. So on this occasion I'm only using it to illustrate beyond doubt that the words are not mine; I'm just quoting them in this instance.

Now if it is true, then this opens up another whole new chapter that needs to be explored thoroughly, as it could possibly be more sustainable.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Graham Butcher

HVO how the 90% cleaner is achieved in how it is produced

The massive savings come from a "well-to-wheel" view. For every 1,000 litres of fossil diesel burned, you add roughly 3.6 tonnes of new CO2 to the environment. For 1,000 litres of HVO, the net lifecycle impact drops to about 0.195 tonnes

Will reducing the co2 in the atmosphere compensate for the rise in global temperature caused by cleaning the air?

3 hours ago, Evolution13 said:

I am paying 202.7 pence a litre for HVO and it worth every penny extra over derv or premium derv. Smooth running , less smelly and improved mpg.

Well well, looks like the V70 can partake of it:

And it’s available at my local BP 👍

Gaz

31 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Nope, nice try but no cigar. I try to verify things first, and the claims that you're questioning as mine are taken directly from an HVO supplier's website. HVO Fuel FAQ – What is HVO & Who can use it? | Crown Oil

This time I still have their website on my screen and also saved in my favourites, so I can revisit whenever I like; this has not always happened in the past.

Below is a screenshot from part of their website, and if you actually do click on that link, you can actually verify for yourself that I'm claiming something that has excellent backup proof. I don't go in for all that TLDNR BS myself; like I've always claimed, I have an open mind, and I can be swayed to change my mind if there is sufficient proof and the provider of the proof has no vested interest in achieving a particular outcome.

I admit that on THIS occasion that website does indeed have a vested interest in getting people to believe what they say. So on this occasion I'm only using it to illustrate beyond doubt that the words are not mine; I'm just quoting them in this instance.

Now if it is true, then this opens up another whole new chapter that needs to be explored thoroughly, as it could possibly be more sustainable.

It's what Nett means, 90% from recycled carbon, 10% from mineral carbon.

Just as dirty for the Earth.

Might burn a bit "smoother" and give slightly better mpg but fundamentally still carbon polluting. One good plant trees or carbon capture for each kilo of fuel produced but it will then compete even more badly against real renewable ie electricity used for cars from real purely renewable non carbon polluting source for vehicle propulsion.

I should have started a thread in Alternative fuels. Sorry.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Evolution13

Getting back to the truth about electric cars,If you are fortunate enough to have a driveway, solar panels, and battery storage, you have essentially won the system. You get to fuel your car for next to nothing, and some people can even brag about getting paid to use their electricity.

But out in the real world, this setup is creating a massive economic divide, and it is driving a deep, stubborn resistance to abandoning petrol and diesel cars.

The current strategy focuses entirely on throwing money at discounting expensive new cars, but that misses the fundamental problem. Having vehicles that are only cheaper to fuel for the relatively wealthy does not encourage mass sales.

Think about the actual running costs. If you can charge at home on a smart overnight tariff, you are paying a fraction of what it costs to run an ICE car. But for the millions of UK households with no off-street parking, like people in terraced houses or flats, home charging is impossible. They are forced to use public rapid chargers, which makes an EV significantly more expensive to run than a standard petrol or diesel car. To make it even more unfair, the government charges full VAT on public electricity but only a reduced rate if you plug in on your own driveway.

Before anyone replies saying "but there are public night-time tariffs" or "you can find slow kerbside charging that equates to diesel price," that completely misses the point of how people actually use cars.

A working family or a commuter without a driveway shouldn't have to wander the streets at midnight or leave their car plugged into a slow lamp-post three streets away just to match the cost of diesel. For a mass transition to work, we need rapid charging that is easily available for all, everywhere, at an acceptable price. Expecting people to jump through logistical hoops just to achieve price parity with an ICE car is unrealistic.

When normal working people look at the current setup, they don't see progress. They see an elite lifestyle choice that is financially toxic for them. Seeing wealthy owners boast about free fuel while rapid public charging remains extortionate just creates resentment and a stubborn determination to stick with ICE cars.

Instead of targeting money at discounting new cars, that funding should be spent bringing the price of rapid public charging down to fair levels. If government money was used to subsidise and cap public charging tariffs so they actually matched home rates, the economic argument to switch would become undeniable for everyone. It would also instantly spark life into the second-hand market where normal people actually buy their cars.

Until we fix the running costs and accessibility for people who don't have a driveway, the mass EV transition is going absolutely nowhere.

48 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

HVO how the 90% cleaner is achieved in how it is produced

The massive savings come from a "well-to-wheel" view. For every 1,000 litres of fossil diesel burned, you add roughly 3.6 tonnes of new CO2 to the environment. For 1,000 litres of HVO, the net lifecycle impact drops to about 0.195 tonnes

Will reducing the co2 in the atmosphere compensate for the rise in global temperature caused by cleaning the air?

I did wonder if that might be the case, but the website seems to suggest the opposite, that by using HVO you will be producing up to 90% less CO₂ when driving. This is also why I asked @Evolution13 about his mpg figures because there was zero mention of increased mpg, which, if provable, would be a great asset to their sales potential.

If anything this highlights that we all need to be asking probing questions and supporting each other; we are not enemies, although it does feel like we are at times

9 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I did wonder if that might be the case, but the website seems to suggest the opposite, that by using HVO you will be producing up to 90% less CO₂ when driving. This is also why I asked @Evolution13 about his mpg figures because there was zero mention of increased mpg, which, if provable, would be a great asset to their sales potential.

If anything this highlights that we all need to be asking probing questions and supporting each other; we are not enemies, although it does feel like we are at times

I just try and post what i believe to be the case in most instances, no intention to be adversarial. I will sometimes even check with AI if what i am saying is valid

The website is correct in saying by driving with HVO it reduces your emissions by 90, it just fails to point out that it's taking into consideration all the steps that lead to that result.

Someone else saying that when burning HVO the engine still produces CO2 is also correct.

Two things can be true at the same time, i always try to wear other peoples shoes when reading replies too.

Some forums are more toxic than others, I find this one fairly good. Not so many go into defence mode over everything they say. If you want animosity have a look at speakev, very defensive and dismissive of those who don't agree on there

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by Stonekeeper

24 minutes ago, Evolution13 said:

Why be sorry? If we can't use this platform and our shared love/appreciation of the motor car in all its formats to learn from each other, then what is the point? I think it is a great educational tool, and we should be celebrating that fact. Also, as @Stonekeeper points out, we should not be creating a huge social divide and building up resentment; we should be doing all within our power to make electric cars freely available and affordable to all regardless of if you're a business owner/user or a private buyer.

It should be all about freedom of choice; all inducements should be removed, and let each type of motive power stand or fall based on its merits. Diesel-powered cars have always been more expensive than their petrol counterparts model for model, so why shouldn't the same apply to electric?

People would then get the type of car that truly reflects their own requirements, and if, as everyone keeps saying, electric cars are far superior in almost every way, then surely the buyers will see that for themselves when their perceived concerns fail to materialise and the technology and support, in both terms of repair and charging support, also mature, then I bet the days for fossil-fuelled cars will become numbered naturally.

16 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I did wonder if that might be the case, but the website seems to suggest the opposite, that by using HVO you will be producing up to 90% less CO₂ when driving. This is also why I asked @Evolution13 about his mpg figures because there was zero mention of increased mpg, which, if provable, would be a great asset to their sales potential.

If anything this highlights that we all need to be asking probing questions and supporting each other; we are not enemies, although it does feel like we are at times

Carbon is the enemy.

Biofuel is a paperwork con.

Still it is dumping carbon into the atmosphere and recent heatwaves, fires etc will give even more impetus to rediubling the pace of removing vehicle that emit carbon.

The island we share will our Irish cousins are offering huge scrappage amounts, over 10K Euros, and this might be a better way to get ICE vehicles off the road rather than just new EV price reduction on sales to those changing one EV for another.

Public charging prices can be very cheap, especially with a TESLA subscription which is quite cheap and soon pays for itself and means one can access prices similar to home charging without the hundreds of pounds some of gave to fork out for hone charging equipment where as public charge users only pay the cost of energy in most cases appears to me. BE EV chargers also do cracking deals if one does not like David Coleman, I mean Elon Musk.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by lol-lol

5 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

Carbon is the enemy.

Not the only cause of warming

"The climate-model experiments make the mechanism unmistakable. When only greenhouse-gas levels changed, the models produced one warming pattern. But when only aerosols were removed, a clear east–west temperature split emerged—exactly the pattern that bends the jet stream into strong stationary ridges over Europe. In fact, the authors write that in summer "the decline in aerosol forcing has been an important driver of the observed excess warming over Europe." Clearing away Europe's pollution haze directly added a chunk of extra warming beyond what greenhouse gases alone would cause."

On 12/08/2026 at 16:41, Graham Butcher said:

Not too sure about what makes sense when it comes to public chargers. The faster ones cost more to buy while 11kw ones risk cars occupying a physical bay for longer, and high power/speed could process far more cars in a given period.

12 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Not the only cause of warming

"The climate-model experiments make the mechanism unmistakable. When only greenhouse-gas levels changed, the models produced one warming pattern. But when only aerosols were removed, a clear east–west temperature split emerged—exactly the pattern that bends the jet stream into strong stationary ridges over Europe. In fact, the authors write that in summer "the decline in aerosol forcing has been an important driver of the observed excess warming over Europe." Clearing away Europe's pollution haze directly added a chunk of extra warming beyond what greenhouse gases alone would cause."

The haze that was causing 30 to 40k life shortenings in the uk and millions worldwide ?

Maybe we and our European neighbours should be spending much more on an international effort to actually get the heaviest pollution nations to remove the biggest polluters from their countries so that mankind everywhere can benefit and make it less about our own air quality, which has improved beyond all recognition of what it was in the 50s to 80s and our lifespans have all received a massive uplift as a result.

11 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

The haze that was causing 30 to 40k life shortenings in the uk and millions worldwide ?

Yes, that's the one, but was it all of it?

2 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Yes, that's the one, but was it all of it?

It is the slowing abd stopping of the Gulf stream that warms Western Europe that worries me due to the melting of the north pole and Greenland ice blocking the Gulf stream.

Eastern Canada is much cooler for the same latitudes as the UK. Life will be very different in the UK !

China and Russia already working on using the Artic ice free route to move their goods even quicker to Europe.

Climate models from organizations like the UK Met Office suggest that if the Gulf Stream system collapsed, London's average summer temperatures would drop, and the intensity of normal heatwaves would soften.

17 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

China and Russia already working on using the Artic ice free route to move their goods even quicker to Europe.

Hmm, that puts a slant on it. Just how much have we in our part of the world helped the warming by the exporting of our manufacturing to the Middle East, for instance, in the pursuit of greater profits, i.e., corporate greed? If we never did, then there would be less pollution being created in the Middle East and far fewer goods being shipped around the globe, and there would be more jobs created locally.

Now I suggest that we should get back to the electric traction topic; good or bad, it's all about exchanging ideas and opinions.

6 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Climate models from organizations like the UK Met Office suggest that if the Gulf Stream system collapsed, London's average summer temperatures would drop, and the intensity of normal heatwaves would soften.

I think we would be not too bad in the English Midlands but north of Birmigham could be not pleasant weather wise. 4 wheel drive vehicles will be needed much more. Was quite impressed with Toyota's system on the 4 wheel drive Prius. Only 10hp to the rear just to get it moving and keep moving. Much easier to do on an EV whereas on an ICE car means big weight increase and big in the already inefficient power to movement figures and cost.

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Hmm, that puts a slant on it. Just how much have we in our part of the world helped the warming by the exporting of our manufacturing to the Middle East, for instance, in the pursuit of greater profits, i.e., corporate greed? If we never did, then there would be less pollution being created in the Middle East and far fewer goods being shipped around the globe, and there would be more jobs created locally.

Now I suggest that we should get back to the electric traction topic; good or bad, it's all about exchanging ideas and opinions.

One can see why Trump wants Greenland !

30 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

I think we would be not too bad in the English Midlands but north of Birmigham could be not pleasant weather wise. 4 wheel drive vehicles will be needed much more. Was quite impressed with Toyota's system on the 4 wheel drive Prius. Only 10hp to the rear just to get it moving and keep moving. Much easier to do on an EV whereas on an ICE car means big weight increase and big in the already inefficient power to movement figures and cost.

I have not seen more than two days of Snow for years. 12 years driving a school bus and only a handful of snow days.😄