Gasohol 91 and gasohol 95 to be phased out: Energy Business Dept

BANGKOK, 29 July 2016 (NNT) - Gasohol 91 will be phased out of gas stations nationwide by 2018 and gasohol 95 will follow suit in 2027.

Energy Business Department Director General Witoon Kulcharoenwirat said the country will be left with two high-percentage ethanol fuels including gasohol E20 and gasohol E85.

Once gasohol 91 and 95 are phased out, the demands for biofuel are expected to triple to 25.4 million liters a day, the department head said.

Energy policymakers will begin to gradually widen the gap in retail prices between gasohol 91/95 and E20 from the current two baht per liter, he said.

Given the current price gap between 91 and 95 being just 42 satang per liter, the policymakers will have to gradually widen the gap by way of excise tax and levies for the state-run Oil Fund.

According to Mr Witoon, all new sedans are compatible with E20, but if its price is not significantly lower than that of E10, motorists would choose to use a lower-percentage fuel.

The Energy Business Department expects the consumption of gasohol 91 and gasohol 95 to remain at a low level of 7.8 million liters per day throughout this year to be on par with the 2015 level.


-- NNT 2016-07-29

I don't fully understand this article.

There are two completely different metrics being discussed here. RON and % Bio.

91 & 95 are RON values and are a measurement of a petrol fuels ability to ignite.

E20 & E85 are measurements describing the ratio of "Bio" sourced fuel compared to conventional petrol per unit.

What are the octane levels of E20 & E85 fuels?

There are 100,000's of vehicles on the road today that require a petrol with a high 95 RON value and a low amount of Bio, typically not greater than 15% by volume.

What are the octane levels of E20 & E85 fuels?

Years ago I thought is was 95 for the petrol part, but stand to be corrected.

There are 100,000's of vehicles on the road today that require a petrol with a high 95 RON value and a low amount of Bio, typically not greater than 15% by volume.

AFAIK my 2004 car can run on 5% ethanol, but not 15%. I wonder if most cars older than 10 years or so will need to be modified/use an octane booster. Sod it need a new one anyway..

Ah yes, take away consumer choice to benefit the sugar barons.

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

I don't fully understand this article.

There are two completely different metrics being discussed here. RON and % Bio.

91 & 95 are RON values and are a measurement of a petrol fuels ability to ignite.

E20 & E85 are measurements describing the ratio of "Bio" sourced fuel compared to conventional petrol per unit.

What are the octane levels of E20 & E85 fuels?

There are 100,000's of vehicles on the road today that require a petrol with a high 95 RON value and a low amount of Bio, typically not greater than 15% by volume.

according to this site "Ethanol has a higher octane rating than most petroleum – usually at 113 RON (Research Octane Number)"

http://biofuelsassociation.com.au/biofuels/ethanol/ethanol-octane-and-corrosion/

I don't fully understand this article.

There are two completely different metrics being discussed here. RON and % Bio.

91 & 95 are RON values and are a measurement of a petrol fuels ability to ignite.

E20 & E85 are measurements describing the ratio of "Bio" sourced fuel compared to conventional petrol per unit.

What are the octane levels of E20 & E85 fuels?

There are 100,000's of vehicles on the road today that require a petrol with a high 95 RON value and a low amount of Bio, typically not greater than 15% by volume.

according to this site "Ethanol has a higher octane rating than most petroleum usually at 113 RON (Research Octane Number)"

http://biofuelsassociation.com.au/biofuels/ethanol/ethanol-octane-and-corrosion/

Yes but that is only part of the equation.

But thanks for posting this info.

An article in todays Business pages of the Nation stated that 91 & 93 will be discontinued but 95 will continue production.

Left hand not sure what the right hand is doing normal in Thailand

Whatever happens fuel for Mercedes and BMW will not be affected. Only the cars of the the poor will be affected. It's Thainess.

Pushing for older vehicles to be phased out?

What a great idea! Now they can cause higher fuel prices and higher food prices (due to agricultural resources being used for fuel) simultaneously. And with the added result of bringing no benefit to the consumer while also causing older machinery to become obsolete prematurely.

But hey, the government has friends making ethanol so what do you expect.

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by canuckamuck

Can I put it in my 10 year old bike is the important thing!

Fortunately the truck is diesel and no need to get confused over that, yet.

Humm. Which politicians are heavily invested in providing modification services for millions of vehicles that can only run on 5% bio? More legislation that total screws the useless eaters poor.

Can I put it in my 10 year old bike is the important thing!

Fortunately the truck is diesel and no need to get confused over that, yet.

You do not want to put anything with more than a 10% ethanol content into your bike.

The current labeled 91 or 93 or 95 fuels are what you are currently fueling up with?

Atleast one of those will continue to be available in the future from the research I have done.

As for your diesel, you should avoid anything with more thsn 5% biofuel.

Your engine wil run on 100% biofuel but the biofuels have a chemical constituent that is known to remove deposits from your fuel system which will quickly clog fuel filters as well as the much more expensive injectors.

Its actually beneficial to run a B5 diesel blend because the biofuel component of diesel has excellent lubricating qualities. (This is not true of ethanol in petrol).

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by ClutchClark

Humm. Which politicians are heavily invested in providing modification services for millions of vehicles that can only run on 5% bio? More legislation that total screws the useless eaters poor.

Studies have indicated older vehicles can still run on 10% ethanol but more thsn that and the ethanol can start drying out gaskets.

Don't let this article get you worried--the gov't intends to still keep one 10% ethanol available at the pump--it is just not clear on what RON it will be.

Guess I'll have to convert my 1989 Merc to LPG in 2027, then.

Yet another example of how environmental purity overwhelms good science and economics. By the time the costs of a monoculture, pesticide leaching and destruction of habitat are factored in, ethanol is about twice the cost ( or more ) of gasoline derived from fossil fuels. Ah well, against stupidity the gods themselves strive in vain.

Guess I'll have to convert my 1989 Merc to LPG in 2027, then.

Yet another example of how environmental purity overwhelms good science and economics. By the time the costs of a monoculture, pesticide leaching and destruction of habitat are factored in, ethanol is about twice the cost ( or more ) of gasoline derived from fossil fuels. Ah well, against stupidity the gods themselves strive in vain.

I do agree with you that ethanol is not the environmentally friendly fuel that it is advertised to be but the reason the gov't is phasing out some 91 & 93 octsne fuels is to cut down on refining costs.

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by williamgeorgeallen

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

While at the same time building more environmentally unfriendly power stations.

As quoted earlier just saving refinery costs.

Nothing to do with the environment.

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

While at the same time building more environmentally unfriendly power stations.

As quoted earlier just saving refinery costs.

Nothing to do with the environment.

Sorry, forgot something.

"Losing forests is the side effect"

That is not a side effect that is totally counterproductive, Forests remove the CO2 and provide Oxygen!

Cutting forests down exacerbates climate change!

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

Ethanol is definitely a fossil fuel, especially so, - that you can even see it grown (if you can patiently watch 'grass' grow...

To refer to the other stuff (petrol) as a fossil fuel is a misnomer.

It is a fallacy drawn up by BigPharmaFuella to pad their own future, pretending the stuff is going to run out

Petrol is totally synthetic ( refer to the WW2 German production of it, that-let-the-cat-out of the bag)

The reserves of the raw stuff is supposed to be sooo deep in the earth,

but what is not widely revealed is that it is too deep - to have come from the 'Dinosaur' ages

Being synthetic, the stuff will never run out - but all this replacing-octane thing is about making profit

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

The most environmentally friendly fuel is CNG, a combination of methane and ethane.

Burning ethanol gives C2H5OH + 4O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O

Burning methane gives 2CH4 + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O

So one is consuming less oxygen and producing less water for the same energy output. Possibly better, because ethanol is already partially oxidized.

Anyone who watched " Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome" was seeing a future powered by methane.

Ethanol is heavily promoted by vested interests worldwide. It doesn't stand up to scientific or economic scrutiny.

Gas prices in Thailand are no way near cheap

I don't fully understand this article.

There are two completely different metrics being discussed here. RON and % Bio.

91 & 95 are RON values and are a measurement of a petrol fuels ability to ignite.

E20 & E85 are measurements describing the ratio of "Bio" sourced fuel compared to conventional petrol per unit.

What are the octane levels of E20 & E85 fuels?

There are 100,000's of vehicles on the road today that require a petrol with a high 95 RON value and a low amount of Bio, typically not greater than 15% by volume.

Not to mention older motorbikes both 4 stroke and 2 stroke, the stand alone generators, brush cutters, chainsaws etc.

A plan which has clearly not been thought through.

I am confused with all of this. My car manufacture recommend I use gasohol 91. If they stop making it what would I use in replacement?

I am confused with all of this. My car manufacture recommend I use gasohol 91. If they stop making it what would I use in replacement?

new car

which will future-fund the ever-expanding Rubber Hose, and VSR industry

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by tifino

great, let's chop down more forests to grow 'bio' fuel.

is more environmentally friendly to produce ethanol than it is to burn fossil fuels. the extraction and consumption of oil and coal creating carbon dioxide is the greatest threat to the human race. loosing forests is the side effect of having to cut carbon emissions in this case.

While at the same time building more environmentally unfriendly power stations.

As quoted earlier just saving refinery costs.

Nothing to do with the environment.

Sorry, forgot something.

"Losing forests is the side effect"

That is not a side effect that is totally counterproductive, Forests remove the CO2 and provide Oxygen!

Cutting forests down exacerbates climate change!

this is a very common misconception. old growth forests suck up carbon carbon and then release it back when the tree dies and rots. to help the environment the wood from the forests needs to be preserved. i have tried to tell this to many people but they refuse to believe it.

I am confused with all of this. My car manufacture recommend I use gasohol 91. If they stop making it what would I use in replacement?

Gasohol 95 or E20

been running my old 2 stroke motorbike on gasohol 91 for years now....most said it would be disastrous to the engine it wasn't.

this is a very common misconception. old growth forests suck up carbon carbon and then release it back when the tree dies and rots. to help the environment the wood from the forests needs to be preserved. i have tried to tell this to many people but they refuse to believe it.

What you say is correct; however, cutting down old growth forests destroys biodiversity and also materially affects water tables and water retention. Many countries have found to their cost their dams don't fill up with widespread monoculture - they empty instead.