Toto Wolf - Formula 1 should be leading the pack in sustainable fuels and biofuels instead of electric

[RedNEO]

But anyway, the question whether F1 should be leading the pack in sustainable fuels is one of technological market relevance, not one of technological feasibility - and in particular the question "are biofuel-powered ICEs a serious contender for power generation in the (newly built) consumer transportation market in the mid- to long-term future?". And that is where my main reservations lie. Now, if ICEs are indeed not going to play an important role in newly built cars in the mid to long future, there is no incentive for manufacturers to invest majorly in ICE-development, and hence, no reason for F1 to be leading the pack from a technology development perspective. They may still use them from an entertainment perspective, and use biofuels to mitigate the negative impact (of the race-aspect) of the sport, but that's quite a different matter than from the perspective of tech-development.

Toto already answers these questions in the OP, the answer to both is yes.

Toto says Daimler is investing in ICE with sustainable fuels.

”And there are premium auto manufacturers such as Daimler who are still investing into internal combustion engines, because in combination with these sustainable fuels, it is a much better carbon footprint than some of the electric vehicles today, where the energy resource is provided by coal or gas.

In that respect, I believe that in Formula 1, it is about technology transfer, we should be leading the pack with sustainable fuels and biofuels in collaboration with our fuel suppliers..”

And it’s not just Mercedes, VW CEO (who withdrew Porsche and Audi from FE) is actively bashing formula E and praising Formula 1 going carbon neutral. You can also add BMW to that list since they also left FE for similar reasons. This is not some racing PR thing, it’s going to part of both the car industry and Racing world going forwards.

Diess said two months ago that synthetic fuels would make it “better to go ahead with motor racing” and “F1 becoming CO2 neutral using synthetic fuels is much more excitement, fun, racing experience, tech-competition than Formula E driving a few laps in city centres in gaming mode”.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-claim ... eo-praise/

[DChemTech]

But anyway, the question whether F1 should be leading the pack in sustainable fuels is one of technological market relevance, not one of technological feasibility - and in particular the question "are biofuel-powered ICEs a serious contender for power generation in the (newly built) consumer transportation market in the mid- to long-term future?". And that is where my main reservations lie. Now, if ICEs are indeed not going to play an important role in newly built cars in the mid to long future, there is no incentive for manufacturers to invest majorly in ICE-development, and hence, no reason for F1 to be leading the pack from a technology development perspective. They may still use them from an entertainment perspective, and use biofuels to mitigate the negative impact (of the race-aspect) of the sport, but that's quite a different matter than from the perspective of tech-development.

Toto already answers these questions in the OP, the answer to both is yes.

Toto says Daimler is investing in ICE with sustainable fuels.

”And there are premium auto manufacturers such as Daimler who are still investing into internal combustion engines, because in combination with these sustainable fuels, it is a much better carbon footprint than some of the electric vehicles today, where the energy resource is provided by coal or gas.

In that respect, I believe that in Formula 1, it is about technology transfer, we should be leading the pack with sustainable fuels and biofuels in collaboration with our fuel suppliers..”

And it’s not just Mercedes, VW CEO (who withdrew Porsche and Audi from FE) is actively bashing formula E and praising Formula 1 going carbon neutral. You can also add BMW to that list since they also left FE for similar reasons. This is not some racing PR thing, it’s going to part of both the car industry and Racing world going forwards.

Diess said two months ago that synthetic fuels would make it “better to go ahead with motor racing” and “F1 becoming CO2 neutral using synthetic fuels is much more excitement, fun, racing experience, tech-competition than Formula E driving a few laps in city centres in gaming mode”.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-claim ... eo-praise/

I know what Toto said. So? Since you made a thread out of it on a forum, I suppose it's open for discussion. And I disagree with Toto's statements - they sound an awful lot like wishful thinking to me, or at an attempt to legitimize keeping ICEs while the trend is so obviously in another direction. And, I also think Toto's statement on overall sustainability is botched. As said before, if you criticize batteries/grid energy to be produced with fossil energy, then you should take the same into account in the processing steps of biofuels. If you then say "well but we use sustainable energy to harvest mah biofuels", then you should acknowledge that you can do the same for your grid power. Now, he's deliberately skewing the picture to make biofuels look better. And again, even if biofuels look (somewhat) better now (under equal, realistic assumptions), a much more important factor for the mid- to long-term is development potential, which I addressed too.

[RedNEO]

I can give credit to battery tech for pushing the industry towards a better solution.

Now that F1 is also investigating synthetic fuels, in which hydrogen and carbon can be captured directly from the air that will be the natural evolution by 2030 which will lead to net zero carbon emissions. It’s a pretty exciting thought that fuel will be made from extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere.

[Just_a_fan]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

[Tommy Cookers]

..... energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

for 50 years we will (as now) non-cleanly 'power' houses etc so we can parade our 'clean' credentials via EVs

[DChemTech]

I can give credit to battery tech for pushing the industry towards a better solution.

Now that F1 is also investigating synthetic fuels, in which hydrogen and carbon can be captured directly from the air that will be the natural evolution by 2030 which will lead to net zero carbon emissions. It’s a pretty exciting thought that fuel will be made from extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere.

But even if F1 were to go that way (which, as Just_a_fan says, is not particularly promising in terms of energy economy), what's the point if there is little to no application in road cars? And even if we account for the fact that it will take decades before second-hand ICE cars &c are gone, and that those cars may, during that period, be using biofuels - how is that relevant for the development of better ICEs? Because that's in the end what determines whether manufacturers would want to invest in ICE development - will new ICE cars be sold in sufficient numbers? With tech development going as it is, my answer to that would be a resounding no.

That's no reason not to use biofuels. If F1 uses ICEs, they should use carbon neutral fuels for their legitimacy. But there's no reason to 'lead the pack' and pour humongous amounts of money into development of ICEs that are marginally better attuned to the biofuel composition, and have no subsequent market application. Just buy the fuel and race with it.

Now, about Direct Air Capture of CO2... you need to get about 400PPM of CO2 out of air. The energy consumption of that is insane. As Just_a_Fan indicates, you will never get a positive return on energy with that. Also, if Toto criticizes electric vehicles for using 'dirty energy'... DAC will require much more energy. So the problem is even bigger, there. If you are generating clean energy anyway, you are better off storing it in battery packs than using it for DAC-Synfuels. Or split water and make hydrogen, if you want higher energy density. Or use carbon captured from industrial processes if you want to make methanol, and use a fuel cell rather than ICE in your power train.

I'm not against DAC itself, by the way. But we have to realize it comes at a cost, and it's not efficient to make fuels out of it. Maybe the carbon will be used to make materials, or just be stored underground to take it out of the atmospheric cycle. Most developing companies anticipate a price of some $100/tonCO2 in due time; add $50 or so for further storage processing and we're at $150/ton. That's still a lot better than the social cost of carbon, which is estimated some $400/ton (Ricke et al. 2018) on economic considerations (and will increase if we add costs of lost quality of life, forced immigration, etc.). So in that respect, we'd be better of pulling carbon from the air (which is required at some point if we want to stay <2 degC global warming), than leaving the carbon in the air and repairing the damages. But there's a lot of low hanging fruit to grab before we go there - DAC only makes sense with energy excess.

[RedNEO]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

[DChemTech]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

Once again. If you say "bio/synfuels are clean because we use clean energy to produce them" but also claim "batteries are not clean because fossil energy is used to produce them", you are committing a fallacy.

And yes, efficiency does matter. You can only spend each kWh once.

[RedNEO]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

Once again. If you say "bio/synfuels are clean because we use clean energy to produce them" but also claim "batteries are not clean because fossil energy is used to produce them", you are committing a fallacy.

And yes, efficiency does matter. You can only spend each kWh once.

The efficiency of these second generation biofuels has increased to the point that F1 and manufacturers have adopted them. They also provide other benefits that batteries can’t compete with among also not needing to worry about air pollution and waste pollution in the there production. It’s time to get off the battery bandwagon.

[nzjrs]

FIA could easily make a rule that allows any competitor to replace any ingredient, in any quantity, in the standard fuel with bio-fuel. Let's see if Mercedes or anyone else jumps on board.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder what the unforseen consequences are.

[DChemTech]

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

Once again. If you say "bio/synfuels are clean because we use clean energy to produce them" but also claim "batteries are not clean because fossil energy is used to produce them", you are committing a fallacy.

And yes, efficiency does matter. You can only spend each kWh once.

The efficiency of these second generation biofuels has increased to the point that F1 and manufacturers have adopted them. They also provide other benefits that batteries can’t compete with among also not needing to worry about air pollution and waste pollution in the there production. It’s time to get off the battery bandwagon.

Biofuels (also 2nd gen.) also have their share of 'secondary emissions', e.g. eutrophication, nitrification, loss of biodiversity, land usage, water usage, dust generation due to land quality loss, pesticide runoffs, etc. As with battery production, I do assume here green energy is used in the production process, but as with battery production, it may not be the case. Even if green energy is used, there will be emissions from harvesting machinery &c still (but I expect them to be offsetted). Again, you cannot criticize one technology on the grounds of having all kinds of secondary emissions, and then not do it for the other. In order to evaluate the mutual benefits and drawbacks of these techs, you need to do a full LCA on both, and since we are talking development, you need to consider development scenarios in that (as stated before; we seem to be going in more circles than a typical grand prix). And you need to consider the limited availability of biofuels. Global transportation requires some 160 Exajoule of energy in 2040 (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/transportation.pdf) with 20-30 EJ for aviation. The current production of bio-ethanol is 2EJ, and biodiesel 1EJ (Heijnen & Noorman, chem. eng. sci 2017) with a projected capacity of ca. 30 EJ biofuels in 2050. In other words all biofuel produced may or may not be just enough to serve the aviation sector alone - and that's the sector that benefits most from the high energy density of liquid fuels. If you consider the total picture, there's just not enough biofuel to go around for all sectors, and of all transportation sectors out there, consumer cars benefit from liquid fuels least.

[Just_a_fan]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

Efficiency is important, whether you care about it or not. Wasting resources because you think they're free is still a waste. As every system has losses, efficiency is still a requirement.

And using CO2 from the atmosphere to use in a fuel doesn't remove it at all. It gets put right back in the atmosphere when you burn the fuel. You also create other pollutants when you burn the fuel - biofuels still create NOx and other stuff that needs to be dealt with. The chemistry of combustion doesn't care where the hydrocarbon came from so it doesn't suddenly stop producing pollutants just because the barrel has "biofuel" on the label.

[RedNEO]

If we're going to go down a road to a future powered by synthetic fuels with the constituents taken from the air, then we're still going to need to massively increase our renewable energy production. Making "fuel from the air" means splitting molecules and reforming them. This is going to require more energy in than we get out when we burn the fuel. So we're basically going to add a layer of inefficiency in to cars with the energy taken from sources that could just as easily be cleanly powering houses and offices etc.

I don’t share your efficiency concerns, it’s irrelevant. You should be more concerned about the fact 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. That measurement is even larger with the production of some of the larger batteries.

These biofuels and synthetic fuels don’t add to the Co2 in the atmosphere at the very least they subtract by using them to make carbon neutral fuels among other things all while being 100% renewable.

Efficiency is important, whether you care about it or not. Wasting resources because you think they're free is still a waste. As every system has losses, efficiency is still a requirement.

And using CO2 from the atmosphere to use in a fuel doesn't remove it at all. It gets put right back in the atmosphere when you burn the fuel. You also create other pollutants when you burn the fuel - biofuels still create NOx and other stuff that needs to be dealt with. The chemistry of combustion doesn't care where the hydrocarbon came from so it doesn't suddenly stop producing pollutants just because the barrel has "biofuel" on the label.

You seem more concerned about these pollutants that you’ve imagined exist in your head but you’ve yet to say what they are. We know biofuels are already carbon neutral and F1 is working to make them zero by 2030. Yes that means more carbon will be being taken out of the atmosphere then put back in. Carbon neutral means nothing extra is being put back into the atmosphere. Batteries is only adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide with its dirty production. Eventually you will stop working overtime to try and play down biofuels and recognise it’s the better solution to batteries and it’s what F1 and the car industry has recognised is the way forwards. Arguing about minor details isn’t going to change anything.

[nzjrs]

You seem more concerned about these pollutants that you’ve imagined exist in your head but you’ve yet to say what they are. We know biofuels are already carbon neutral and F1 is working to make them zero by 2030. Yes that means more carbon will be being taken out of the atmosphere then put back in. Carbon neutral means nothing extra is being put back into the atmosphere. Batteries is only adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide with its dirty production. Eventually you will stop working overtime to try and play down biofuels and recognise it’s the better solution to batteries and it’s what F1 and the car industry has recognised is the way forwards. Arguing about minor details isn’t going to change anything.

Has it actually been demonstrated/calculated yet that at the scale it is required, sufficient second generation bio-fuels can be produced? It's great that they don't compete with food production 'directly', but arable land area and farmers are finite.

[RedNEO]

You seem more concerned about these pollutants that you’ve imagined exist in your head but you’ve yet to say what they are. We know biofuels are already carbon neutral and F1 is working to make them zero by 2030. Yes that means more carbon will be being taken out of the atmosphere then put back in. Carbon neutral means nothing extra is being put back into the atmosphere. Batteries is only adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide with its dirty production. Eventually you will stop working overtime to try and play down biofuels and recognise it’s the better solution to batteries and it’s what F1 and the car industry has recognised is the way forwards. Arguing about minor details isn’t going to change anything.

Has it actually been demonstrated/calculated yet that at the scale it is required, sufficient second generation bio-fuels can be produced? It's great that they don't compete with food production 'directly', but arable land area and farmers are finite.

The scalability? Well biofuels is extracting it from waste that has already absorbed co2 and synthetic is just taking it directly from the atmosphere. I imagine both will be used in tandem. I don’t think scalability will be a problem especially since the processes will grow more efficient with more companies including F1 teams and there oil suppliers now fully behind them. It seems like it will be a lot easier and cheaper to extract than with fossil fuels, especially since it’s renewable.