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

[Ferry]

And it still doesn’t solve the problem that they are dirty to produce.

The dirtiness of battery production lies in the carbon footprint of the electricity used. The same goes for e-fuels. It's a problem that belongs to the energy system, really. In the future e-fuels can be produced from renewables. As can batteries. My problem with e-fuels is the low efficiency to produce it. And thereby cost, both in money and environmental. For every wind turbine or PV-panel used to fill an EV, you need 3x that to fill e-fuel on a ICE.

[RedNEO]

And it still doesn’t solve the problem that they are dirty to produce.

The dirtiness of battery production lies in the carbon footprint of the electricity used. The same goes for e-fuels. It's a problem that belongs to the energy system, really. In the future e-fuels can be produced from renewables. As can batteries. My problem with e-fuels is the low efficiency to produce it. And thereby cost, both in money and environmental. For every wind turbine or PV-panel used to fill an EV, you need 3x that to fill e-fuel on a ICE.

You must be thinking of first generation e-fuels. We are already on second generation e-fuels and they don’t leave a carbon footprint. They are carbon neutral. That’s why F1 has adopted them. Bio-fuels and synthetic fuels are now the direction of the car industry and F1 for a whole host of reasons that batteries just can’t achieve today.

[RedNEO]

I’m not sure what SpaceX and it’s fans think a success is but if you look at the comments here and hear the clapping, apparently an explosion is a success..

Thunderbird's are no! din din ner ner, din ner ner ner din din ner ner ner nerrrrrrrrrr.

[RedNEO]

Formula 1 has already gained public support from Volkswagen’s CEO and Porsche has been talking about biofuels as a way of preserving classics into the future.

I think we have our first clue as to which manufacturer(s) is eying a 2025 entry that Domenicali was hinting at.

[NL_Fer]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

[RedNEO]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

This is has got nothing to do with hydrogen or converting electricity. FIA/F1 has developed a bio-fuel thats 100% sustainable and exclusively refined using biowaste.

[ENGINE TUNER]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

Furthermore, with electric cars all the pollution is centralized at the power plants and therefore easier to capture to sequester or recycle. Also, with gas, people forget the efficiency loss from transportation, the oil has to be pumped out of the ground, shipped to a refinery, shipped from the refinery to the holding tanks(pipeline)and then to gas stations(by truck) and then into the car's fuel tank where it sits with a good amount evaporating off. The electrical grid is much more efficient and is improving.

Synthetic fuel is much more necessary for planes and helicopters where energy density is more important than in ground and sea vehicles.

[Just_a_fan]

Ultimately it's all a load of PR BS. "Ooh, look, our race cars run on biofuel!"

Great. That's good to hear.

Now, about the aircraft that flies the whole circus all around the world, the lorries that do the road miles, the energy used to make carbon fibre and the rest?

The energy used to move an F1 car around a track is such a tiny part of the total that it's all a bit silly. International motor racing is not "sustainable" or "green" or "climate friendly".

Sorry, end of moan. Bad back and a need to get things done is not a good combination and leads to a grumpy J_a_F!

[DChemTech]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

This is has got nothing to do with hydrogen or converting electricity. FIA/F1 has developed a bio-fuel thats 100% sustainable and exclusively refined using biowaste.

I find that a pretty bold claim. The source material may be renewable, but keep in mind that the processing of biofuels is relatively energy-intensive, and if that energy is not generated sustainably, the product cannot be called sustainable either. Now, the situation improved compared to 2010, but back then I attended a seminar from a UK policy officer on biofuels that had done an emission assessment for biofuels from different sources, and found some to be more polluting than diesel, because of outdated tractors &c being used in harvesting/coal-fired power plants in further processing. If you criticize a battery for having potentially polluting steps in its life-cycle (energy-intensive construction & partial recyclability), then you must also consider the potentially polluting steps in biofuel production, and compare them evenly (as well as acknowledge improvement potential in both). Currently, both options are cleaner than conventional cars with conventional fuel. Whether bio or elec wins with the current state of the art, I don't know - that likely depends on the source of energy as well as biomass. Still, battery tech has more development options as far as I can see. Recyclability improves and energy cost per unit goes down.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against biofuels. I am in favor of them, and work in the biotechnology sector myself. But if you look at the needs of typical commuter traffic honestly, as well as the volumes required, biofuels are simply not the way forward for that particular sector. Biomass is wonderful for materials production (which needs carbon), for aviation (which needs energy density) and possibly long-haul freighting (which needs range and moderate energy density, although H2/Syn-MeOH fuel cells are probably better suited there in the long run).

[Big Tea]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

This is has got nothing to do with hydrogen or converting electricity. FIA/F1 has developed a bio-fuel thats 100% sustainable and exclusively refined using biowaste.

I find that a pretty bold claim. The source material may be renewable, but keep in mind that the processing of biofuels is relatively energy-intensive, and if that energy is not generated sustainably, the product cannot be called sustainable either. Now, the situation improved compared to 2010, but back then I attended a seminar from a UK policy officer on biofuels that had done an emission assessment for biofuels from different sources, and found some to be more polluting than diesel, because of outdated tractors &c being used in harvesting/coal-fired power plants in further processing. If you criticize a battery for having potentially polluting steps in its life-cycle (energy-intensive construction & partial recyclability), then you must also consider the potentially polluting steps in biofuel production, and compare them evenly (as well as acknowledge improvement potential in both). Currently, both options are cleaner than conventional cars with conventional fuel. Whether bio or elec wins with the current state of the art, I don't know - that likely depends on the source of energy as well as biomass. Still, battery tech has more development options as far as I can see. Recyclability improves and energy cost per unit goes down.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against biofuels. I am in favor of them, and work in the biotechnology sector myself. But if you look at the needs of typical commuter traffic honestly, as well as the volumes required, biofuels are simply not the way forward for that particular sector. Biomass is wonderful for materials production (which needs carbon), for aviation (which needs energy density) and possibly long-haul freighting (which needs range and moderate energy density, although H2/Syn-MeOH fuel cells are probably better suited there in the long run).

That was my thought when I read it is from food waste. Far better not to waste food in the first place.
After that though, far better to use it than plough it in

[RedNEO]

An EV has an efficiency of 80-90% from electricity being fed to the battery and powering the motor. Also there is no idling loss and brake energy recovery. So even being charged with fossil electricity, an EV is very energie efficient. Charge it with renewable electricity, it is even beter.

An ICE is still 30-40% efficient at best and even lower with average usage, due idling/acceleration/warmup/braking losses. So 20-30% is more realistic. Than converting electricity to hydrogen is only 50-60% efficient at best, maybe 70-75% in the future. Converting hydrogen into synthetic fuel or gas will cost another percentage.

All this combined, a combustion vehicle running on synthetic fuel, derived from renewable electricity will use only 10% to power the wheels. Compared to an EV this pretty bad.

I still believe synthetic fuel will has it purpose in the future, although it will stay niche. The mass will drive battery electric vehicles.

This is has got nothing to do with hydrogen or converting electricity. FIA/F1 has developed a bio-fuel thats 100% sustainable and exclusively refined using biowaste.

I find that a pretty bold claim. The source material may be renewable, but keep in mind that the processing of biofuels is relatively energy-intensive, and if that energy is not generated sustainably, the product cannot be called sustainable either. Now, the situation improved compared to 2010, but back then I attended a seminar from a UK policy officer on biofuels that had done an emission assessment for biofuels from different sources, and found some to be more polluting than diesel, because of outdated tractors &c being used in harvesting/coal-fired power plants in further processing. If you criticize a battery for having potentially polluting steps in its life-cycle (energy-intensive construction & partial recyclability), then you must also consider the potentially polluting steps in biofuel production, and compare them evenly (as well as acknowledge improvement potential in both). Currently, both options are cleaner than conventional cars with conventional fuel. Whether bio or elec wins with the current state of the art, I don't know - that likely depends on the source of energy as well as biomass. Still, battery tech has more development options as far as I can see. Recyclability improves and energy cost per unit goes down.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against biofuels. I am in favor of them, and work in the biotechnology sector myself. But if you look at the needs of typical commuter traffic honestly, as well as the volumes required, biofuels are simply not the way forward for that particular sector. Biomass is wonderful for materials production (which needs carbon), for aviation (which needs energy density) and possibly long-haul freighting (which needs range and moderate energy density, although H2/Syn-MeOH fuel cells are probably better suited there in the long run).

Don’t take my word for it, take a read for yourself. It’s can be made with zero carbon emissions. It’s just what F1 and the car industry was looking for.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... arbon-fuel

Formula 1 engines will run on new green, sustainable fuel this winter after the first barrels of FIA-produced biofuel rolled into the factories of power unit manufacturers.
Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda, this week received the fuel, made from waste material, for testing with current technology.
It’s the latest step in Formula 1’s bid to produce zero carbon by 2030, without resorting to battery-powered racing.
The introduction of a sustainable fuel that can be made without carbon emissions is central to this.

Developed by the FIA’s Technical Department, it’s described as a “second-generation biofuel variety”, that has been refined using only bio-waste, not meant for human or animal consumption.

[DChemTech]

Don’t take my word for it, take a read for yourself. It’s can be made with zero carbon emissions. It’s just what F1 and the car industry was looking for.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... arbon-fuel

Formula 1 engines will run on new green, sustainable fuel this winter after the first barrels of FIA-produced biofuel rolled into the factories of power unit manufacturers.
Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda, this week received the fuel, made from waste material, for testing with current technology.
It’s the latest step in Formula 1’s bid to produce zero carbon by 2030, without resorting to battery-powered racing.
The introduction of a sustainable fuel that can be made without carbon emissions is central to this.

Developed by the FIA’s Technical Department, it’s described as a “second-generation biofuel variety”, that has been refined using only bio-waste, not meant for human or animal consumption.

Thanks for the article. It's good to see they do take that aspect into consideration. Still, my remark that one must look at batteries the same way stands - batteries cost energy to make, but if built using renewable energy, that step is carbon neutral, too. Another question of importance is then, which costs less energy to make + use over the entire life-cycle. Even if both technologies are fully carbon-neutral, if you can make/operate 10 electric cars with X amount of energy, and make/operate 15 biofuel-fueled cars with the same amount of energy, biofuel would win in that respect (and vice-versa). And then there's land use, and so on.

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.

[Ferry]

The source material may be renewable, but keep in mind that the processing of biofuels is relatively energy-intensive, and if that energy is not generated sustainably, the product cannot be called sustainable either.

That's my point also. Biofuel CAN be produced with renewables only, but that would mean something else has to use non-renewable energy. Why not just put renewable energy to the grid and let everything be a little bit cleaner? Dirty power generation is a general problem. It's not directly linked to neither biofuel, battery production or EV charging.
Maybe one day we have 100% renewable energy, and a lot of leftover unused. Then It would make sense to store energy as hydrogen or e-fuel, even with low efficiency.
As far as I understand the process, e-fuels (synthetic diesel or gasoline) needs one extra step (and efficiency loss) compared to hydrogen. And additional efficiency loss in an ICE compared to a fuel cell.

From the link RedNEO gave: "the process is seen as carbon neutral — if the biofuel production uses renewable energy."
And: "F1 is also investigating synthetic fuels, in which hydrogen and carbon can be captured directly from the air."

So it's second generation biofuel to start with. And maybe 4th generation (e-fuel) later on. Source of defs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#F ... n_biofuels

[notsofast]

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.

[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.

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/