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

[DChemTech]

For any concerns about scalability..

Excellent news. 550 million litres a year by 2026. The UK used 46.5 billion litres of road vehicle fuel last year. That's just the UK.

So the Porsche plant will need to be replicated by about 100 times just to run UK road vehicles.

And that eFuel, as they call it, still causes NOx and other pollutants to be pumped out on urban streets when it is burned.

We get that you don't like batteries and want ICE to carry on forever, but the reality is that battery is a much better option in urban environments. And guess where most people live?

And it will be replicated so..? I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but biofuels are the rage right now.

As to your other point they already have ICE prototypes that have managed to reach absolute 0 emmissions by recombining said gases with what is basically a super cathalytic converter.

As said 5 billion times, there is not enough of them to replace all fuel; barely enough to replace all kerosine if we'd dedicate all resources. There can be all the hype you like, it is not going to magically create 5x more biomass availability.

[RedNEO]

Excellent news. 550 million litres a year by 2026. The UK used 46.5 billion litres of road vehicle fuel last year. That's just the UK.

So the Porsche plant will need to be replicated by about 100 times just to run UK road vehicles.

And that eFuel, as they call it, still causes NOx and other pollutants to be pumped out on urban streets when it is burned.

We get that you don't like batteries and want ICE to carry on forever, but the reality is that battery is a much better option in urban environments. And guess where most people live?

And it will be replicated so..? I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but biofuels are the rage right now.

As to your other point they already have ICE prototypes that have managed to reach absolute 0 emmissions by recombining said gases with what is basically a super cathalytic converter.

As said 5 billion times, there is not enough of them to replace all fuel; barely enough to replace all kerosine if we'd dedicate all resources. There can be all the hype you like, it is not going to magically create 5x more biomass availability.

It will, it’s called sustainable fuel for a reason. You can choose to believe you are correct and all the other manufacturers/F1/FIA are all wrong if you like though.

[DChemTech]

And it will be replicated so..? I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but biofuels are the rage right now.

As to your other point they already have ICE prototypes that have managed to reach absolute 0 emmissions by recombining said gases with what is basically a super cathalytic converter.

As said 5 billion times, there is not enough of them to replace all fuel; barely enough to replace all kerosine if we'd dedicate all resources. There can be all the hype you like, it is not going to magically create 5x more biomass availability.

It will, it’s called sustainable fuel for a reason. You can choose to believe you are correct and all the other manufacturers/F1/FIA are all wrong if you like though.

...

Availablity has to do with how much farmland we have. Not with whether something is renewable.

I have said it before and will say it again: renewable is not limitless. If you want more biomass, you need more planet. You can cut down some more rainforest if you like, but that's about it, and that is not going to gain you enough ground - it will do a lot of other damage, though.

[RedNEO]

As said 5 billion times, there is not enough of them to replace all fuel; barely enough to replace all kerosine if we'd dedicate all resources. There can be all the hype you like, it is not going to magically create 5x more biomass availability.

It will, it’s called sustainable fuel for a reason. You can choose to believe you are correct and all the other manufacturers/F1/FIA are all wrong if you like though.

...

Availablity has to do with how much farmland we have. Not with whether something is renewable.

I have said it before and will say it again: renewable is not limitless. If you want more biomass, you need more planet. You can cut down some more rainforest if you like, but that's about it, and that is not going to gain you enough ground - it will do a lot of other damage, though.

Downvoting me makes no difference it’s happening and there’s nothing you can say or do to stop it.

[DChemTech]

It will, it’s called sustainable fuel for a reason. You can choose to believe you are correct and all the other manufacturers/F1/FIA are all wrong if you like though.

...

Availablity has to do with how much farmland we have. Not with whether something is renewable.

I have said it before and will say it again: renewable is not limitless. If you want more biomass, you need more planet. You can cut down some more rainforest if you like, but that's about it, and that is not going to gain you enough ground - it will do a lot of other damage, though.

Downvoting me makes no difference it’s happening and there’s nothing you can say or do to stop it.

I didn't downvote you.

But I would appreciate if you would seriously respond to the availability issue for once.

[RedNEO]

...

Availablity has to do with how much farmland we have. Not with whether something is renewable.

I have said it before and will say it again: renewable is not limitless. If you want more biomass, you need more planet. You can cut down some more rainforest if you like, but that's about it, and that is not going to gain you enough ground - it will do a lot of other damage, though.

Downvoting me makes no difference it’s happening and there’s nothing you can say or do to stop it.

I didn't downvote you.

But I would appreciate if you would seriously respond to the availability issue for once.

How is it not clear to you yet? These climate neutral e-fuels don’t need extra carbon dioxide or farmland space/ forest space to increase fuel production, they only need to build more plants which (as you can see with Porsche) they are doing. They have all the carbon dioxide they need there’s plenty and it’s renewable. Do you think they’ve actually overlooked something as basic as availability before investing heavily?

[DChemTech]

Downvoting me makes no difference it’s happening and there’s nothing you can say or do to stop it.

I didn't downvote you.

But I would appreciate if you would seriously respond to the availability issue for once.

How is it not clear to you yet? These climate neutral e-fuels don’t need extra carbon dioxide or farmland space/ forest space to increase fuel production, they only need to build more plants which (as you can see with Porsche) they are doing. They have all the carbon dioxide they need there’s plenty and it’s renewable. Do you think they’ve actually overlooked something as basic as availability before investing heavily?

Again, ....

As your yourself said, these fuels are made from agricultural waste. There is only so much agricultural waste, hence, there is only so much fuel that can be made from it. To quote, "How is that not clear to you yet?".

I don't think the F1 manufacturers overlooked that (just, you did). They just do what is logical from the perspective of people reliant on ICEs. They try to cling to every little option that they have. Logical, but from a systems perspective, not sensible. But I've already laid all of that out in previous posts, and vowed I would not be producing long replies that you will just ignore anyway. If you want to know more, just read back.

[RedNEO]

I didn't downvote you.

But I would appreciate if you would seriously respond to the availability issue for once.

How is it not clear to you yet? These climate neutral e-fuels don’t need extra carbon dioxide or farmland space/ forest space to increase fuel production, they only need to build more plants which (as you can see with Porsche) they are doing. They have all the carbon dioxide they need there’s plenty and it’s renewable. Do you think they’ve actually overlooked something as basic as availability before investing heavily?

Again, ....

As your yourself said, these fuels are made from agricultural waste. There is only so much agricultural waste, hence, there is only so much fuel that can be made from it. To quote, "How is that not clear to you yet?".

I don't think the F1 manufacturers overlooked that (just, you did). They just do what is logical from the perspective of people reliant on ICEs. They try to cling to every little option that they have. Logical, but from a systems perspective, not sensible. But I've already laid all of that out in previous posts, and vowed I would not be producing long replies that you will just ignore anyway. If you want to know more, just read back.

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

[nzjrs]

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

Watching this thread, I really think you have failed to understand more or less everything that has been presented to you.

Independent of that however, people can have different opinions about the energy mix and how it will/should change over time - and you don't need to flip out when they are different to yours.

[DChemTech]

How is it not clear to you yet? These climate neutral e-fuels don’t need extra carbon dioxide or farmland space/ forest space to increase fuel production, they only need to build more plants which (as you can see with Porsche) they are doing. They have all the carbon dioxide they need there’s plenty and it’s renewable. Do you think they’ve actually overlooked something as basic as availability before investing heavily?

Again, ....

As your yourself said, these fuels are made from agricultural waste. There is only so much agricultural waste, hence, there is only so much fuel that can be made from it. To quote, "How is that not clear to you yet?".

I don't think the F1 manufacturers overlooked that (just, you did). They just do what is logical from the perspective of people reliant on ICEs. They try to cling to every little option that they have. Logical, but from a systems perspective, not sensible. But I've already laid all of that out in previous posts, and vowed I would not be producing long replies that you will just ignore anyway. If you want to know more, just read back.

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

So, which ones then?
The systems analysis of biomass use a cited before shows you can produce about 1/5th of the transportation fuel requirement with biomass. That's at least first and second generation, don't know if they included algae too - don't have access to the paper right now. Anyway, algae are very area-intensive and most suitable to make protein or food-grade oils. They may contribute to biofuels but wont change the game.

Municipal waste? Plastic production accounts for only some 5% of crude oil use to begin with, with the rest being stationary and transport fuel. So all municipal waste will be only minor contribution. However, it makes more sense to recycle plastics to make new plastics. With that we can cover about 80% of new material production. The other 20% needs a fresh carbon source. Which one? Well, biomass. So actually, we will be using some biomass for materials production, instead of using materials for biofuel production.

Carbon from the air? There sure is enough. But as pointed out before, it's hugely energy intensive to get it out - it takes more energy to get out the car on that the fuel contains. And renewable energy is not limitless energy; for all but a few niche applications, it makes more sense to use the energy directly (e.g., put it in a battery and drive), than to spend it on getting carbon from the air. And once you do take carbon from the air, it makes more sense to fixate it for a long time (underground or in building material maybe) than to burn it and pump it back in. But we've told you this before, too. And every researcher I know in the biobased industry is aware of these limitations. Which does not deter us from using biomass, quite the contrary. But it does guide us to decide which future applications are sensible, and which are not. In the short run, biofuels in legacy ICEs are sensible. In the long run, maintaining ICE development is not.

[RedNEO]

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

Watching this thread, I really think you have failed to understand more or less everything that has been presented to you.

Independent of that however, people can have different opinions about the energy mix and how it will/should change over time - and you don't need to flip out when they are different to yours.

It’s actually the other way around. I’ve understood why F1 and the FIA together with their suppliers are investing in these e-fuels as a legitimate and better alternative to batteries. It’s up to you whether you want to disagree with them but it’s not my responsibility to change your mind. And I didn’t flip out, why would I? I’m happy they’ve found a better solution and at how confident they are they have even set a zero emissions target of 2030 - far ahead of the 2050 goal set by governments.

[DChemTech]

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

Watching this thread, I really think you have failed to understand more or less everything that has been presented to you.

Independent of that however, people can have different opinions about the energy mix and how it will/should change over time - and you don't need to flip out when they are different to yours.

It’s actually the other way around. I’ve understood why F1 and the FIA together with their suppliers are investing in these e-fuels as a legitimate and better alternative to batteries. It’s up to you whether you want to disagree with them but it’s not my responsibility to change your mind. And I didn’t flip out, why would I? I’m happy they’ve found a better solution and at how confident they are they have even set a zero emissions target of 2030 - far ahead of the 2050 goal set by governments.

Now you are just being condescending. I did downvote you this time.

[RedNEO]

Again, ....

As your yourself said, these fuels are made from agricultural waste. There is only so much agricultural waste, hence, there is only so much fuel that can be made from it. To quote, "How is that not clear to you yet?".

I don't think the F1 manufacturers overlooked that (just, you did). They just do what is logical from the perspective of people reliant on ICEs. They try to cling to every little option that they have. Logical, but from a systems perspective, not sensible. But I've already laid all of that out in previous posts, and vowed I would not be producing long replies that you will just ignore anyway. If you want to know more, just read back.

There isn’t just ‘one way’ or one thing you can extract co2 from. There are so many avenues so it’s really a non-issue that nobody else seems to be concerned about.

So, which ones then?
The systems analysis of biomass use a cited before shows you can produce about 1/5th of the transportation fuel requirement with biomass. That's at least first and second generation, don't know if they included algae too - don't have access to the paper right now. Anyway, algae are very area-intensive and most suitable to make protein or food-grade oils. They may contribute to biofuels but wont change the game.

Municipal waste? Plastic production accounts for only some 5% of crude oil use to begin with, with the rest being stationary and transport fuel. So all municipal waste will be only minor contribution. However, it makes more sense to recycle plastics to make new plastics. With that we can cover about 80% of new material production. The other 20% needs a fresh carbon source. Which one? Well, biomass. So actually, we will be using some biomass for materials production, instead of using materials for biofuel production.

Carbon from the air? There sure is enough. But as pointed out before, it's hugely energy intensive to get it out - it takes more energy to get out the car on that the fuel contains. And renewable energy is not limitless energy; for all but a few niche applications, it makes more sense to use the energy directly (e.g., put it in a battery and drive), than to spend it on getting carbon from the air. And once you do take carbon from the air, it makes more sense to fixate it for a long time (underground or in building material maybe) than to burn it and pump it back in. But we've told you this before, too. And every researcher I know in the biobased industry is aware of these limitations. Which does not deter us from using biomass, quite the contrary. But it does guide us to decide which future applications are sensible, and which are not. In the short run, biofuels in legacy ICEs are sensible. In the long run, maintaining ICE development is not.

You’ve said all of this before and like the first time I’ll point you to what manufacturers are saying instead of me..

Toto “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”

[DChemTech]

... what?

The thing we have been doing for the past 12 pages is discuss whether that statement makes sense! It is the subject of the discussion, not an argument in itself.

(And adding to that, the statement doesn't even contain a response to the specific question I asked.)

[RedNEO]

The statement doesn’t just make sense it’s undeniable.

Electric vehicles main energy resource is coal and gas

The main energy resource of e-fuelled ICE vehicles is Co2

The carbon footprint for e-fuelled ICE’s is much better than electric vehicles

Energy density and infrastructure is also much better for e-fuelled ICE vehicles than electric vehicles

The FIA agrees with this assessment and backs it. Going as far as providing teams with barrels of efuel to make there own and setting a target to be 100% powered by them

Seems pretty clear cut, no?

Which part doesn’t make sense?

In regards to the sustainability we simply don’t have enough information how they have achieved this with the second generation e-fuels to say either way how effective it will be compared to the outdated information that’s available today. What’s clear is it’s moving forwards even outside F1, F1 will just accelerate the efficiency and availability of it through all these suppliers and manufacturers working towards that net zero emissions goal in 2030. I can’t see how batteries can somehow overcome everything listed above with all this in mind.