Fuelling to the brim, how much extra does it cost?

I've always had an interest in fuel efficiency, particularly in cars as it's something I can easily relate to. Most of my experimenting has been in a 1.9TDi Seat Leon with a 54.5 litre tank, admittedly with mixed results. I once managed to travel 950 miles on a single tank, drafting behind lorries at 45 mph the majority of the time to average 79 miles to the gallon. I've also run out of fuel twice, once on a remote section of unlit Scottish motorway 10 miles from the nearest exit and not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Despite averaging nearly 80 mpg once I've found it an almost impossible task to repeat, mainly because it's extremely boring to never exceed 45 mph or 1500 rpm. I've found I'm more interested in working out efficient ways to drive as opposed to putting them into practice.

What I'd now like to work out is how much money you could save by carrying the minimum amount of fuel needed to complete a particular journey. It's generally accepted that an extra 45kg in your vehicle could reduce the average mpg by up to 2%, with Northern Ireland being pretty lumpy and the road surfaces quite heavy I'm going to use the full 2%.


Using a Seat Leon, 1.9TDi (54.5 litre tank) as an example:

Diesel weighs approximately 0.85kg per litre meaning a full tank will add 46.3kg to the car. This will reduce the average mpg by around 2.05%, compared to a car with a tank 2% full.

If the vehicle averaged 50 mpg with a tank 98-100% full, the average mpg should increase to just over 51 mpg when the tank is 0-2% full. The only issue being it's almost impossible to drive anywhere with a tank just 2% full, a better comparison would be a daily commute.

Say you had a daily commute of 30 miles, averaging 50 mpg you would only need 2.75 litres of fuel or a tank filled 5% to complete that journey. If you did that journey with a full tank the average mpg would drop to 49, improving the average as fuel is brunt and the car gets lighter. The tank 5% full will obviously need topping up on a daily basis.

When carrying roughly 12 gallons of diesel (full) the average mpg will drop by 1 mpg, 0.92 mpg carrying 11 gallons, 0.83 mpg with 10 gallons and so on. Over the course of an entire tank the vehicle will have traveled 6.5 miles less than if you'd put just 2.75 litres in the tank every day, costing an additional 87 pence.


It's clear that fueling specifically for a particular journey just isn't worth it, not to mention the fact you'd only save money if nothing ever went wrong. I'd question the sanity of anyone that would spend an extra half an hour at the pumps every week to save less than a pound. The exact savings will obviously vary slightly from car to car, the bottom line however will stay the same.

You'd be far better off removing the spare tyre along with the passenger seats.

Northern Ireland, is it time for water charges?

If you live in the UK you've almost certainly either heard of or been affected by flash flooding over the past 2 days. The infrastructure that's supposed to deal with excess water and avoid the situations seen across the country just hasn't been adequate resulting in widespread calls for better and more efficient drainage systems.  I want to focus on Belfast, Northern Ireland and why it's in a unique situation compared to the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland is unique because it does not pay water charges, is it time for a change?

£135 million pounds, that's the cost to bring Northern Ireland's water and sewage systems up to minimum EU standards. The fact that Northern Ireland needs that size of an investment shows just how poor the existing system is and goes a long way in explaining the scenes over the past number of days, but where will that money come from without introducing water charges?

The simple answer is money would have to be taken away from other projects in the Department for Regional Development's budget or if necessary re-allocate funds from other departments. Saying that it's highly unlikely that money would be taken from other departments, Northern Ireland is financially strained in almost every government department and taking money from schools, hospitals, the emergency services and other areas to prevent flooding is never going to happen meaning money would have to come from the existing DRD budget. 

The DRD has an annual budget of £926m, £342m of which is for water and sewage services. It seems like a lot but remember that the £342m for water and sewage doesn't include the £135m required to improve the existing system. The question is whether Northern Ireland is willing to sacrifice things like better roads and resurfacing programmes to make up the additional money? I've no doubt that anyone with flood damage would say that's a fair trade but in reality it isn't. I don't want to go into a lot of a detail as to why it isn't a fair trade but for example sacrificing better roads would affect everything from the already ailing economy to response times for emergency services, from tourism revenue to unemployment levels, the list goes on. The money has to come from another source, water charges.

As of 2011 Northern Ireland had around 720,000 households, if each was to pay the proposed £400 in water charges the DRD could generate upwards of £250m a year in addition to their existing budget. That would be more than enough to cover a substantial upgrade to the system and more importantly keep it up to date for the foreseeable future.

Gone are the days of direct rule when parliament would throw money at Northern Ireland in an attempt to further the peace process, the money has to come from within. Political parties have used water charges to gain votes, it helped their cause in the short term but ultimately isn't a sustainable position long term. Northern Ireland has a simple choice, introduce water charges or get used to the scenes of the last few days because unless something changes it's going to happen again.    


*Article was written on the 29th of June 2012 following flash floods in Belfast*