Alternative F1 fuels

[flynfrog]

Also lets not cloud up the thread with our discussion unless the mods want to rename it alterative F1 fuels

[autogyro]

Also lets not cloud up the thread with our discussion unless the mods want to rename it alterative F1 fuels

Agreed flynfrog, it is getting way off the thread subject.
I thought mike was going to get me doing a thesis on thermal dynamics, systems boundaries and all that stuff.
Hydrogen is not IMO a sensible fuel for F1. It has been used recently in other formula and karts using fuel cells. I do not believe this is the way to go either.
Fuel cells however are a useful way of increasing range from on board liquid fuel.
Unfortunately petrol or diesel does not work in these cells.
Ethanol does.

[flynfrog]

Also lets not cloud up the thread with our discussion unless the mods want to rename it alterative F1 fuels

Agreed flynfrog, it is getting way off the thread subject.
I thought mike was going to get me doing a thesis on thermal dynamics, systems boundaries and all that stuff.
Hydrogen is not IMO a sensible fuel for F1. It has been used recently in other formula and karts using fuel cells. I do not believe this is the way to go either.
Fuel cells however are a useful way of increasing range from on board liquid fuel.
Unfortunately petrol or diesel does not work in these cells.
Ethanol does.

do you have a link to an ethanol fuel cell? Are the better at energy density than Lipo Batteries or regular petrol

[autogyro]

Also lets not cloud up the thread with our discussion unless the mods want to rename it alterative F1 fuels

Agreed flynfrog, it is getting way off the thread subject.
I thought mike was going to get me doing a thesis on thermal dynamics, systems boundaries and all that stuff.
Hydrogen is not IMO a sensible fuel for F1. It has been used recently in other formula and karts using fuel cells. I do not believe this is the way to go either.
Fuel cells however are a useful way of increasing range from on board liquid fuel.
Unfortunately petrol or diesel does not work in these cells.
Ethanol does.

do you have a link to an ethanol fuel cell? Are the better at energy density than Lipo Batteries or regular petrol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell

Not yet very advanced but catching up slowly.
IMO if as much money were put in as was put into hydrogen it would be at a similar level.

[Mikey_s]

Interestingly, and perhaps a little flippantly , one of the serious contenders for a truly 'green' automotive fuel that was noted in the WTW study was CBG (compressed biogas) - it is a by-product of animal slurry (methane) and, if there is a reasonable supply (>8000 cows or 50000 pigs within 20km) there was a significant energy and GHG benefit...

Bullsh!t anyone?

[autogyro]

Interestingly, and perhaps a little flippantly , one of the serious contenders for a truly 'green' automotive fuel that was noted in the WTW study was CBG (compressed biogas) - it is a by-product of animal slurry (methane) and, if there is a reasonable supply (>8000 cows or 50000 pigs within 20km) there was a significant energy and GHG benefit...

Bullsh!t anyone?

Sorry Mickey I did not realize you worked for Total.

[ringo]

here is an alternative:
natural gas powered gas turbines. These can be couple to electrical motors for negotiating slow speed corners where the turbine can be disconected from the drive and held at synchronous speed to power the motors.
For high speed the drive is engage to the gas turbine and you got yourself a hotwheel powered F1 run on LNG and spinning up to 50,000 rpm.

[flynfrog]

I design turbine engines. The turbine could be incredibly small (like smaller than a turbo charger). My only concerns are the pressurized tank and the burst case of the turbine.

[Ian P.]

here is an alternative:
natural gas powered gas turbines. These can be couple to electrical motors for negotiating slow speed corners where the turbine can be disconected from the drive and held at synchronous speed to power the motors.
For high speed the drive is engage to the gas turbine and you got yourself a hotwheel powered F1 run on LNG and spinning up to 50,000 rpm.

If LNG is the MO for the engines, and I take this to me Liquified Natural Gas, if you park the car at the airport for a 4 day trip, you will definitly return to a near empty tank.
How you provide the motive energy, be it fuel cell, turbine, IC engine or free-piston Loud Mouth engine, the best thermal efficiency you are going to get with the most modern methods available (and drempt of) is 50%. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what or how you do it, 50% is about the limit for now and the forseeable future.
All the posturing about "new" technologies is primarily driven by ....."how can I get someone to pay me to develop this xxxxxx system?",

[Ian P.]

Do you think using hydrogen in f1 would ever be viable? if the rules allowed it of course. And im NOT talking about hydrogen FUEL CELLS, but the same 2400cc v8s running on liquid hydrogen or even the gas form of it. It certainly would help speed up the development of the necessary systems to store it properly. It would also be a better green incentive for f1s image then a couple of green stripes on tyre's or the ill fated KERS.

If the storage was sorted out it would have a few advantages. Hydrogen has a very high energy density, well it is a rocket fuel! so potentially greater power outputs. But the perhaps the greatest advantage is also its greatest obstacle - its temperature - its a liquid at -252.87°C!

Of course that and its low density (its the least dense gas known to man) make it

Do you think using hydrogen in f1 would ever be viable? if the rules allowed it of course. And im NOT talking about hydrogen FUEL CELLS, but the same 2400cc v8s running on liquid hydrogen or even the gas form of it. It certainly would help speed up the development of the necessary systems to store it properly. It would also be a better green incentive for f1s image then a couple of green stripes on tyre's or the ill fated KERS.

If the storage was sorted out it would have a few advantages. Hydrogen has a very high energy density, well it is a rocket fuel! so potentially greater power outputs. But the perhaps the greatest advantage is also its greatest obstacle - its temperature - its a liquid at -252.87°C!
Of course that and its low density (its the least dense gas known to man) make it hard to store. if that was sorted the fuel could be used to cool the engine by being pumped through the radiators before being burned in the engine (just as NASA use it to cool the boosters before burning it) resulting in smaller or even no radiator openings on the car allowing the aerodynamics to be much more efficent.
lastly it could be used to precool the air to the engine making it more dense and increasing power output.
these are just some of my hair brained ideas, feel free to point out where im wrong
your thoughts and comments please

Just a couple of quick comments on the potential use of Hydrogen on a wide scale....

The energy storage density of H2 in either compressed or liquid form is .....the pits.
To compress it to around 6,500 psi takes about 10% of the available energy in the H2, usually as added electrical power. To convert it to a liquid takes about 50% and no amount of technical wizardry is going to change that. When you stroe it in a tank, it is boiling off almost immediately and constantly. The saturation pressure to prevent this is beyond reasonable technology.

The idea of using compressed H2 and using it to cool the inlet or the engine itself, sorry, physics seldom cooperates and this is no different. H2 is unique in having a negative Joule Thompson effect, it actually heats up with pressure reduction. NASA uses the heat of the rocket motor to vaporize the liquid fuel (and O2) to cool the equipment to prevent it melting.
H2 works as a rocket fuel, not because it has a decent energy density (it doesn't) but because it is such a light molecule and they can acvieve such high gas velocities out of the reaction engine (rocket motor).
Trying to burn H2 in an IC engine is dubious at best. We have about 6 IC vehicles running (at any one time) on compressed H2 in our little operation. All are supercharged 350 CI V-8s and to say their performance is sedantary is an understatement. You just can't get enough air and fuel into the engine to produce a decent amount of power. The Ford Busses all have monster, blown V-10s and they are no better than the Rousch supercharged 8s.
Why are we persuing this you ask....a. see previous post and b. the H2 is currently being vented. This is a fuel source that is free for the taking (in this instance) but by the time you compress, clean, store and distribute it, free doesn't fit any more.
For powering fuel cells directly, H2 works great. It just so happens we can't keep an industrially robust fuel cell running for more than weeks, let alone years.
Is there an application for H2 as a fuel, yes, but rest assured it isn't in F1 cars, it isn't in your future and it won't be competitive with almost any other energy source.

[riff_raff]

Ian P.,

Hydrogen makes an excellent fuel for IC engines, as long as you ignore all of the more practical issues regarding its safe storage, handling, cost, availability, energy density, etc. In theory, hydrogen has a very high octane number (RON>130) and produces a very high combustion flame speed, but in practice its actual knock limit is not so good. The automotive OEMs have many hydrogen fueled IC engines running around as concept cars, but they all use extremely high-pressure (ie. >600 bar) fuel storage systems that take several hours just to refuel.



The biggest problem with using hydrogen as a fuel in F1, is that it would need to be stored in a cryogenic (liquefied) form in the car's fuel tank, in order to provide enough fuel for even a very short F1 race. And refueling during the race would be out of the question, due to safety. Can you imagine a pit crew pumping 20 gallons of cryogenic (-425degF) liquid hydrogen into an F1 car's fuel tank during a 6 second pit stop? Yikes!

Regards,
Terry

[xpensive]

I still believe that Methanol is the reasonable way to go for an alternative fuel for reciprocating engines in general. It has indeed a lower energy density than Ethanol, let alone Gasoline, but is possible to produce from cellulose, a renewable raw material soon available in huge quantities as the consumption of newsprint will next to cease.

However, nothing will ever be able to replace gasoline, MJ per MJ, on the same financial terms, there's simply no way.

[Mikey_s]

The new thread title expands the scope somewhat... (in any case that didn't stop the drift earlier!)

First thinks first...

Sorry Mickey I did not realize you worked for Total.

I don't, although I have worked for an oil company in the past (not in the fuels division though, and not in Total!). Nor do I understand why anything I have contributed to the thread might be construed as supporting an oil company position.

However, I do think there is a frequent misconception that biomass derived fuels are de facto good for the planet... this is not always (or even often!) the case. As I have said previously, I take no pride of ownership of the WTW study - if anyone can provide flaws in either the methodology or the assumptions go ahead and present them.. but let's stick to facts and technical discussion. If anyone disagrees with the findings of the WTW study, provide counter arguments or refernces that demonstrate it is incorrect - blindly sticking to a belief that bio is better despite it being demonstrably not is not a sensible way to progress the discussion.

back to the thread...

Now it has been renamed I think the main question is what are the underlying assumptions;
Everyone seems to agree that the ICE is not an efficient way of converting fuel to motive energy, so do we confine our thoughts to the ICE? Some 70% of the available thermal energy goes straight out of the tail pipe. A turbo will immediately give you a significant increase in volumetric efficiency irrespective of fuel type, but I'm not sure the FIA has any appetite for more power.

If new engine technology is on the table then the options are enormous....

Given that a fuel is an energy storage device I guess the thread could/should debate MJ/kg... there's already a thread on diesel in F1, so I won't go further on that one.

[autogyro]

The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity.
An electric infra structure is the inevitable future result.
EV's are the future no matter what the fuel source.
F1 and motor sport in general will do well to recognize the EV revolution and embrace it.

[Mikey_s]

Auto,
on a technical forum it's always better to qualify your statements...

I assume by the term 'Energy transfer' you mean conversion of energy into power. Electic motors are rather good at doing that and have also been discussed in this formum. However, this thread is about fuels: Liquid hydrocarbon fuels are energy storage devices - and rather good ones too, they are easily transported and stored.

Electricity is not a fuel, but a means to do work; the energy storage device for electricity is the battery, or a super capacitor; and whilst there are efficient means for converting electrical power into motive power, the big issue is where to keep the power until you use it. That brings us back on topic...

Batteries and capacitors are not particularly efficient storage media, so that brings us back to fuel cells as the medium for converting a fuel to energy. The maximum theoretical efficiency of fuel cells (according to wiki) is 83%, which is higher than the trusty ICE (60% according to the same source), so some scope for improvement, although I'm sure that F1 engines are far below 30% efficient as power and not efficiency is the key criterion (within reason).

BUT... what do you feed the fuel cell with? (and what is the efficiency of that manufactuing process?). Once again we are back to the question of what the main objective is... power or efficiency (or the best compromise of the two).

Next season will be quite interesting as refuelling is banned and we might start to see differences betwen engine fuel efficiency(and thus race weight) in the race.

Getting enough energy on board for a race distance with the minimum weight/volume penalty is the challenge. (and in my view should be the focus for the FIA to encourage improvements in F1's green credentials over the next few years - start to limit the amount of energy the teams have to complete a race and the engineers will need to place greater importance onto efficiency)