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

[DChemTech]

...

A 150 million dollar F1 car, from it's tires, wheels, brakes, engine and everything, has 0,0 % relevance to the road.
They didn't in the 70s, 80s, 90s, they never will.

Which is all fine, but then let's not pretend that it is relevant, and just accept F1 is a show. And let's also be honest that an overzealous drive for synfuels (fueled by pretensions of societal relevance) may actually, on the larger scale of things, do more harm than good.

Most of the topics you address have been reacted to in detail by Wesley and JAF, and I largely stand by their contributions - so I will not respond to every point in detail. But what is important to realize is that synfuels have major limitations. In essence, synfuels are batteries, too - they're chemical means of storing (sustainable) energy. They have advantages (energy density, transportability as liquid), and drawbacks: mainly, involving many energy-intensive production steps, which means the windmill-to-wheel (or other means of power generation) efficiency is quite a bit lower for synfuels (and hydrogen) than for batteries. The 'brief' by the Royal Society shows that quite well: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy ... iefing.pdf
BEVs have a 65% efficiency according to this analysis, syn-diesel... 13%. So, you need about 5x the amount of renewable energy to get the same power on the road when you're using synfuels compared to batteries. Which means you can drive much fewer cars on the same amount of energy, or alternatively, you need much more renewable power generation to drive the same amount of cars (maybe not 5x, because fuel cars can be lighter than battery cars & such, but still).

But we don't magically have more renewable power - the fact that something is reliable doesn't make it limitless, and even if solar energy is abundant - harvest of it is sorely limited, and will be for decades. If you are investing substantial amounts in the production of synfuels while renewable energy overall is limited, you are preventing that energy from being used in other, more efficient applications. In other words, you may be 'greening up' your scope - but you are blocking other markets from greening up more, and slowing down the overall transition. That is not to say there is no market for synfuels; their advantages may outweigh their disadvantages in certain markets, such as long-haul heavy traffic and aviation, where the energy density and charging rate of batteries are too much of an issue. That's fine, but use them where they make sense. Don't try to turn them into a magic bullet that they are not. And the same applies to batteries, of course. They are not a magic bullet either, and I am highly sceptical of electric flight at any serious scale. Overall, my bet is on batteries for commute, hydrogen/methanol fuel cells (and perhaps ammonia) for long-haul road transport and shipping, and synfuel for aviation. If you follow the over-optimistic 'techblogs' it may seem like we're going for synfuel road transport and electric aviation - if that materialises, we did something really really wrong in terms of energy requirement. And after all, the most green energy technology is the energy you do not need to generate.

The 'current synfuel' you are referring to (E85 and such) are mostly 1st generation biofuels - competition with food, and requiring huge swaths of land to be cleared for production. I am not fully against them as they can serve a buffer function (in the sense that you can valorize overproduced food, provided you always prioritise usage as food in times of shortage), but they are not feasible for scale-up towards the full, worldwide fuel market. There is insufficient land to do so. There has been some fuzz around 2nd generation biofuels (using farmwaste instead of edible material) some decade ago, but there is a reason that all companies that tried to bring that to market failed - they're expensive (cannot compete with current oil price) and provide little return on energy. But even if we overcome those challenges, there is not enough biomass to go around. Systems analysis indicates that at best we may produce enough biofuel for aviation, maybe some shipping, but no more than that. And again, in that case you're best off serving the markets that have no alternative - not the market where there is a much higher efficiency alternative available.

For the rest, it may be good to be aware that this discussion was essentially done before, in viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29554
It didn't really go anywhere, but if you have some interesting new takes, it may be best to move there instead of the silly season.

[Jolle]

...

A 150 million dollar F1 car, from it's tires, wheels, brakes, engine and everything, has 0,0 % relevance to the road.
They didn't in the 70s, 80s, 90s, they never will.

Which is all fine, but then let's not pretend that it is relevant, and just accept F1 is a show. And let's also be honest that an overzealous drive for synfuels (fueled by pretensions of societal relevance) may actually, on the larger scale of things, do more harm than good.

Most of the topics you address have been reacted to in detail by Wesley and JAF, and I largely stand by their contributions - so I will not respond to every point in detail. But what is important to realize is that synfuels have major limitations. In essence, synfuels are batteries, too - they're chemical means of storing (sustainable) energy. They have advantages (energy density, transportability as liquid), and drawbacks: mainly, involving many energy-intensive production steps, which means the windmill-to-wheel (or other means of power generation) efficiency is quite a bit lower for synfuels (and hydrogen) than for batteries. The 'brief' by the Royal Society shows that quite well: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy ... iefing.pdf
BEVs have a 65% efficiency according to this analysis, syn-diesel... 13%. So, you need about 5x the amount of renewable energy to get the same power on the road when you're using synfuels compared to batteries. Which means you can drive much fewer cars on the same amount of energy, or alternatively, you need much more renewable power generation to drive the same amount of cars (maybe not 5x, because fuel cars can be lighter than battery cars & such, but still).

But we don't magically have more renewable power - the fact that something is reliable doesn't make it limitless, and even if solar energy is abundant - harvest of it is sorely limited, and will be for decades. If you are investing substantial amounts in the production of synfuels while renewable energy overall is limited, you are preventing that energy from being used in other, more efficient applications. In other words, you may be 'greening up' your scope - but you are blocking other markets from greening up more, and slowing down the overall transition. That is not to say there is no market for synfuels; their advantages may outweigh their disadvantages in certain markets, such as long-haul heavy traffic and aviation, where the energy density and charging rate of batteries are too much of an issue. That's fine, but use them where they make sense. Don't try to turn them into a magic bullet that they are not. And the same applies to batteries, of course. They are not a magic bullet either, and I am highly sceptical of electric flight at any serious scale. Overall, my bet is on batteries for commute, hydrogen/methanol fuel cells (and perhaps ammonia) for long-haul road transport and shipping, and synfuel for aviation. If you follow the over-optimistic 'techblogs' it may seem like we're going for synfuel road transport and electric aviation - if that materialises, we did something really really wrong in terms of energy requirement. And after all, the most green energy technology is the energy you do not need to generate.

The 'current synfuel' you are referring to (E85 and such) are mostly 1st generation biofuels - competition with food, and requiring huge swaths of land to be cleared for production. I am not fully against them as they can serve a buffer function (in the sense that you can valorize overproduced food, provided you always prioritise usage as food in times of shortage), but they are not feasible for scale-up towards the full, worldwide fuel market. There is insufficient land to do so. There has been some fuzz around 2nd generation biofuels (using farmwaste instead of edible material) some decade ago, but there is a reason that all companies that tried to bring that to market failed - they're expensive (cannot compete with current oil price) and provide little return on energy. But even if we overcome those challenges, there is not enough biomass to go around. Systems analysis indicates that at best we may produce enough biofuel for aviation, maybe some shipping, but no more than that. And again, in that case you're best off serving the markets that have no alternative - not the market where there is a much higher efficiency alternative available.

For the rest, it may be good to be aware that this discussion was essentially done before, in viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29554
It didn't really go anywhere, but if you have some interesting new takes, it may be best to move there instead of the silly season.

Very off topic. But, Formula 1 isn’t a show. It’s a giant marketing tool by the grace of those who use it. It’s a business. Besides that, anything with combustion has to go, CO2 is only half the problem. NOx is the other half.

[politburo]

...

A 150 million dollar F1 car, from it's tires, wheels, brakes, engine and everything, has 0,0 % relevance to the road.
They didn't in the 70s, 80s, 90s, they never will.

Which is all fine, but then let's not pretend that it is relevant, and just accept F1 is a show. And let's also be honest that an overzealous drive for synfuels (fueled by pretensions of societal relevance) may actually, on the larger scale of things, do more harm than good.

Most of the topics you address have been reacted to in detail by Wesley and JAF, and I largely stand by their contributions - so I will not respond to every point in detail. But what is important to realize is that synfuels have major limitations. In essence, synfuels are batteries, too - they're chemical means of storing (sustainable) energy. They have advantages (energy density, transportability as liquid), and drawbacks: mainly, involving many energy-intensive production steps, which means the windmill-to-wheel (or other means of power generation) efficiency is quite a bit lower for synfuels (and hydrogen) than for batteries. The 'brief' by the Royal Society shows that quite well: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy ... iefing.pdf
BEVs have a 65% efficiency according to this analysis, syn-diesel... 13%. So, you need about 5x the amount of renewable energy to get the same power on the road when you're using synfuels compared to batteries. Which means you can drive much fewer cars on the same amount of energy, or alternatively, you need much more renewable power generation to drive the same amount of cars (maybe not 5x, because fuel cars can be lighter than battery cars & such, but still).

But we don't magically have more renewable power - the fact that something is reliable doesn't make it limitless, and even if solar energy is abundant - harvest of it is sorely limited, and will be for decades. If you are investing substantial amounts in the production of synfuels while renewable energy overall is limited, you are preventing that energy from being used in other, more efficient applications. In other words, you may be 'greening up' your scope - but you are blocking other markets from greening up more, and slowing down the overall transition. That is not to say there is no market for synfuels; their advantages may outweigh their disadvantages in certain markets, such as long-haul heavy traffic and aviation, where the energy density and charging rate of batteries are too much of an issue. That's fine, but use them where they make sense. Don't try to turn them into a magic bullet that they are not. And the same applies to batteries, of course. They are not a magic bullet either, and I am highly sceptical of electric flight at any serious scale. Overall, my bet is on batteries for commute, hydrogen/methanol fuel cells (and perhaps ammonia) for long-haul road transport and shipping, and synfuel for aviation. If you follow the over-optimistic 'techblogs' it may seem like we're going for synfuel road transport and electric aviation - if that materialises, we did something really really wrong in terms of energy requirement. And after all, the most green energy technology is the energy you do not need to generate.

The 'current synfuel' you are referring to (E85 and such) are mostly 1st generation biofuels - competition with food, and requiring huge swaths of land to be cleared for production. I am not fully against them as they can serve a buffer function (in the sense that you can valorize overproduced food, provided you always prioritise usage as food in times of shortage), but they are not feasible for scale-up towards the full, worldwide fuel market. There is insufficient land to do so. There has been some fuzz around 2nd generation biofuels (using farmwaste instead of edible material) some decade ago, but there is a reason that all companies that tried to bring that to market failed - they're expensive (cannot compete with current oil price) and provide little return on energy. But even if we overcome those challenges, there is not enough biomass to go around. Systems analysis indicates that at best we may produce enough biofuel for aviation, maybe some shipping, but no more than that. And again, in that case you're best off serving the markets that have no alternative - not the market where there is a much higher efficiency alternative available.

For the rest, it may be good to be aware that this discussion was essentially done before, in viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29554
It didn't really go anywhere, but if you have some interesting new takes, it may be best to move there instead of the silly season.

Very off topic. But, Formula 1 isn’t a show. It’s a giant marketing tool by the grace of those who use it. It’s a business. Besides that, anything with combustion has to go, CO2 is only half the problem. NOx is the other half.

Atleast the speculation part may not be off-topic but going into specifics of each propulsion type probably is.

In other matters, why is the driver market so quiet during the long summer break this particular year?. Does it all depends on Mercedes/Williams' driver choices?. It's quite intriguing nonetheless.

[Jolle]

Which is all fine, but then let's not pretend that it is relevant, and just accept F1 is a show. And let's also be honest that an overzealous drive for synfuels (fueled by pretensions of societal relevance) may actually, on the larger scale of things, do more harm than good.

Most of the topics you address have been reacted to in detail by Wesley and JAF, and I largely stand by their contributions - so I will not respond to every point in detail. But what is important to realize is that synfuels have major limitations. In essence, synfuels are batteries, too - they're chemical means of storing (sustainable) energy. They have advantages (energy density, transportability as liquid), and drawbacks: mainly, involving many energy-intensive production steps, which means the windmill-to-wheel (or other means of power generation) efficiency is quite a bit lower for synfuels (and hydrogen) than for batteries. The 'brief' by the Royal Society shows that quite well: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy ... iefing.pdf
BEVs have a 65% efficiency according to this analysis, syn-diesel... 13%. So, you need about 5x the amount of renewable energy to get the same power on the road when you're using synfuels compared to batteries. Which means you can drive much fewer cars on the same amount of energy, or alternatively, you need much more renewable power generation to drive the same amount of cars (maybe not 5x, because fuel cars can be lighter than battery cars & such, but still).

But we don't magically have more renewable power - the fact that something is reliable doesn't make it limitless, and even if solar energy is abundant - harvest of it is sorely limited, and will be for decades. If you are investing substantial amounts in the production of synfuels while renewable energy overall is limited, you are preventing that energy from being used in other, more efficient applications. In other words, you may be 'greening up' your scope - but you are blocking other markets from greening up more, and slowing down the overall transition. That is not to say there is no market for synfuels; their advantages may outweigh their disadvantages in certain markets, such as long-haul heavy traffic and aviation, where the energy density and charging rate of batteries are too much of an issue. That's fine, but use them where they make sense. Don't try to turn them into a magic bullet that they are not. And the same applies to batteries, of course. They are not a magic bullet either, and I am highly sceptical of electric flight at any serious scale. Overall, my bet is on batteries for commute, hydrogen/methanol fuel cells (and perhaps ammonia) for long-haul road transport and shipping, and synfuel for aviation. If you follow the over-optimistic 'techblogs' it may seem like we're going for synfuel road transport and electric aviation - if that materialises, we did something really really wrong in terms of energy requirement. And after all, the most green energy technology is the energy you do not need to generate.

The 'current synfuel' you are referring to (E85 and such) are mostly 1st generation biofuels - competition with food, and requiring huge swaths of land to be cleared for production. I am not fully against them as they can serve a buffer function (in the sense that you can valorize overproduced food, provided you always prioritise usage as food in times of shortage), but they are not feasible for scale-up towards the full, worldwide fuel market. There is insufficient land to do so. There has been some fuzz around 2nd generation biofuels (using farmwaste instead of edible material) some decade ago, but there is a reason that all companies that tried to bring that to market failed - they're expensive (cannot compete with current oil price) and provide little return on energy. But even if we overcome those challenges, there is not enough biomass to go around. Systems analysis indicates that at best we may produce enough biofuel for aviation, maybe some shipping, but no more than that. And again, in that case you're best off serving the markets that have no alternative - not the market where there is a much higher efficiency alternative available.

For the rest, it may be good to be aware that this discussion was essentially done before, in viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29554
It didn't really go anywhere, but if you have some interesting new takes, it may be best to move there instead of the silly season.

Very off topic. But, Formula 1 isn’t a show. It’s a giant marketing tool by the grace of those who use it. It’s a business. Besides that, anything with combustion has to go, CO2 is only half the problem. NOx is the other half.

Atleast the speculation part may not be off-topic but going into specifics of each propulsion type probably is.

In other matters, why is the driver market so quiet during the long summer break this particular year?. Does it all depends on Mercedes/Williams' driver choices?. It's quite intriguing nonetheless.

My guess is because most drivers are on long term contracts at the moment. The two big questions are, will Kimi do another year and when are they going to announce the Bottas/Russell switch.

[billamend]

I will guarantee you this: just like at some point everywhere 'V power' started popping up alongside classic RON95, you will find a moment where Synth fuel will become available at the gas station.

[Zynerji]

I will guarantee you this: just like at some point everywhere 'V power' started popping up alongside classic RON95, you will find a moment where Synth fuel will become available at the gas station.

The cost of Li-Ion batteries has dropped like 95% in 10 years... Why wouldn't synth fuels find a similar reduction when adopted?

[DChemTech]

I will guarantee you this: just like at some point everywhere 'V power' started popping up alongside classic RON95, you will find a moment where Synth fuel will become available at the gas station.

The cost of Li-Ion batteries has dropped like 95% in 10 years... Why wouldn't synth fuels find a similar reduction when adopted?

Because the high cost of synfuels comes from the poor energy efficiency of production, which is inherent to the processing steps required. If your energy efficiency (in vs. out) is just 6-15% as this guy claims (which matches the 13% from the royal society paper), well, you're paying for a lot of energy you are eventually not using. The synfuels will be as expensive as the energy going in (and price drops in energy price will be equally beneficial for battery vehicles).
That is problematic from a cost perspective, but even more from a sustainability perspective. You need 5x more energy input to get equal energy output in a synfuel car compared to a battery car (of equal weight etc.), as I explained above. As long as energy is limited, you cannot defend such wastes if there is a perfectly fine, much more efficient alternative available.

[Zynerji]

The cost of Li-Ion batteries has dropped like 95% in 10 years... Why wouldn't synth fuels find a similar reduction when adopted?

Because the high cost of synfuels comes from the poor energy efficiency of production, which is inherent to the processing steps required. If your energy efficiency (in vs. out) is just 6-15% as this guy claims (which matches the 13% from the royal society paper), well, you're paying for a lot of energy you are eventually not using. The synfuels will be as expensive as the energy going in (and price drops in energy price will be equally beneficial for battery vehicles).
That is problematic from a cost perspective, but even more from a sustainability perspective. You need 5x more energy input to get equal energy output in a synfuel car compared to a battery car (of equal weight etc.), as I explained above. As long as energy is limited, you cannot defend such wastes if there is a perfectly fine, much more efficient alternative available.

ICE have only been extracting 25% of the energy from gasoline for the large part of the last 100 years. With the huge increase that we are seeing with downsizing/turbo engines, you don't think that consumption values will decrease overall to the point that these costs will not be so prohibitive?

Also, I often wonder what the electrical companies do with all of the energy that they save today compared to 10 years ago. The change of 1 billion incandescent lightbulbs to super efficient LEDS should have been a HUGE demand drop. What are they doing with the excess now?

PS: Just realized this is the SIlly Season thread, and not the Electric Vehicle thread...

[Manoah2u]

The cost of Li-Ion batteries has dropped like 95% in 10 years... Why wouldn't synth fuels find a similar reduction when adopted?

Because the high cost of synfuels comes from the poor energy efficiency of production, which is inherent to the processing steps required. If your energy efficiency (in vs. out) is just 6-15% as this guy claims (which matches the 13% from the royal society paper), well, you're paying for a lot of energy you are eventually not using. The synfuels will be as expensive as the energy going in (and price drops in energy price will be equally beneficial for battery vehicles).
That is problematic from a cost perspective, but even more from a sustainability perspective. You need 5x more energy input to get equal energy output in a synfuel car compared to a battery car (of equal weight etc.), as I explained above. As long as energy is limited, you cannot defend such wastes if there is a perfectly fine, much more efficient alternative available.

All valid and good points -
however

Let's look into some other aspects.
For example, LPG has all about lost it's benefit nowadays. Apart from the fact that LPG has a lower calorific value than gasoline - which means you need to consume more LPG compared to Gasoline to achieve the same result, so your 'LPG consumption' will be higher than Gasoline consumption - LPG used to be quite a bunch cheaper in most european countries. It still is, but in The Netherlands nowadays, LPG is the same or even more expensive than Diesel.
Why I mention this is becuase in due time, certain 'things' will become more expensive.

Now, let's look into the electricity bills. They have SURGED the past few years. Energy price is going through the roof, and I can guarantee that it's going to go up even more. People however have little option: they'll still have to pay.
A potential option are solar panels - but first and foremost; these are relatively expensive, and have a limited lifespan. You will have to invest in such a 'device' , and not everybody has those options. Next, you need to have a return of investment.
Solar panels have been steadily going down in their pricing, and their quality has been greatly improved - but this comes as a cost: cheap ones are not good ones, and expensive ones are obviously costly.

But the biggest result from this is that solar panels help drive energy bill prices up. The energy providers are missing out on money, so they'll want to have that back. The only way to is to increase the bill.

Now, let's focus this back on the future of vehicles.

Cars are charged from home outlets. Not every parking spot has this yet, nor every country is facilitated well in this aspect. However, you charge from the outlet, and you pay for the charge. If the electricity price goes up, so does your consume price of the car, just like gasoline if you may. It's not unlikely that there is going to be a system in the future that you pay additional taxes for charging cars: after all, energy has to come from somewhere, and if 'overnight' everybody starts driving EV's then suddenly, everybody needs to charge what, 5 to 10 kwh each DAY.
Try and provide that!

Guaranteed result: energy bill will greatly increase.

Yes, EV's have improved their efficiency too and will more the coming years. But the 'world' will adapt to this too.

Now let's look back at Synth fuels.
As another poster mentioned: you can damn well be sure that the biggest 'obstacle' to produce synth fuels is the 'energy' it cost. This will become much cheaper too fast, especially if there is DEMAND for it.

Additionally, 'normal' gasoline - in more than one country - has added taxes. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that governments will NOT impose those taxes on synth fuels, to motivate the use of said fuels.

All you really have to do is this: look back in history.
There was a time we had no Tesla and no consumer EV's. Then, they came about and it was a select few that went with it. Today, we're 'switching'. Things have changed.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that won't go for Synth fuel. Matter of fact, i absolutely guarantee it.

I will make this prediciton: in 25 years, there will still be many combustion cars around driving on synth fuel.
the world will NOT run solely on EV's.

That said, yes - we're very offtopic.

[nzjrs]

Also, I often wonder what the electrical companies do with all of the energy that they save today compared to 10 years ago. The change of 1 billion incandescent lightbulbs to super efficient LEDS should have been a HUGE demand drop. What are they doing with the excess now?

I guess this isn't a sarcastic question? But anyway, if it's genuine, usually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox kicks in

[DChemTech]

ICE have only been extracting 25% of the energy from gasoline for the large part of the last 100 years. With the huge increase that we are seeing with downsizing/turbo engines, you don't think that consumption values will decrease overall to the point that these costs will not be so prohibitive?

Also, I often wonder what the electrical companies do with all of the energy that they save today compared to 10 years ago. The change of 1 billion incandescent lightbulbs to super efficient LEDS should have been a HUGE demand drop. What are they doing with the excess now?

PS: Just realized this is the SIlly Season thread, and not the Electric Vehicle thread...

There is one major difference between conventional fossil fuels and synfuels: we do not need to make conventional fuels. They already exist, we just need to extract them from the earth and clean them up a bit. As such, the amount of energy invested is low compared to the amount of energy harvested from fossil fuels, especially from easily accessible oil. The cheap fuels (and lack of competitive alternatives and environmental awareness) meant we could be rather wasteful - now that prices are increasing and competitive alternatives appear, efficiency becomes more relevant. But the gains in combustion technology are not endless - and they are diminishing.

For synfuels, we do need to pay the energy required to make them, which makes them inherently more expensive. The major energy losses happen in the production steps: making hydrogen, capturing CO2, and reacting them together into hydrocarbons. Engine efficiency can make a few percent difference, but don't make or break synfuels.

And for the rest, we've not been saving energy on the whole - energy consumption goes up year by year, which is enough of a challenge for renewable energy to keep up with already. Let alone if we would start wasting large amounts of it to produce inefficient fuels for applications where better alternatives are available.

[DChemTech]

All valid and good points -
however
...

Guaranteed result: energy bill will greatly increase.

Yes, EV's have improved their efficiency too and will more the coming years. But the 'world' will adapt to this too.

Now let's look back at Synth fuels.
As another poster mentioned: you can damn well be sure that the biggest 'obstacle' to produce synth fuels is the 'energy' it cost. This will become much cheaper too fast, especially if there is DEMAND for it.

You lost me in this argumentation...
- For batteries, you mention the biggest problem is that electricity becomes more and more expensive...
- but for synfuels, you say that if more people want it, more energy will easily become available so they can be produced.

You do realise that synfuels are produced using renewable electricity, right? So if rising electricity costs are an issue for batteries, they are an absolute killer for synfuels, which requires 5x the electricity for the same power output. The statements you made above seem to be contradictory, in that respect.

Yes, renewable energy is limited and will be for decades. And if you have choice between using it to power 5 battery cars or running 1 on synfuel (and 4 remain running on gasoline), that should be a very easy decision - opting for synfuel would be a borderline environmental crime.

All you really have to do is this: look back in history.
There was a time we had no Tesla and no consumer EV's. Then, they came about and it was a select few that went with it. Today, we're 'switching'. Things have changed.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that won't go for Synth fuel. Matter of fact, i absolutely guarantee it.

I will make this prediciton: in 25 years, there will still be many combustion cars around driving on synth fuel.
the world will NOT run solely on EV's.

That said, yes - we're very offtopic.

Oh yes, I have no illusions about EV 'conquering' the world in 25 years. For one, there will be many legacy cars, which in some markets will last for decades before being replaced. I expect them to run on a combination of biofuel and probably legacy fossil (I have no illusions about the world being fossil free by then). Second, there will be the long-haul heavy transport niches, where the benefits of synfuel offset the drawbacks. But if we are smart regarding synfuels, we'll eventually use them for aviation and those niches, as mentioned before. Considering the energy usage required, I don't expect we need legislation for that - the price will do.

[Manoah2u]

I guess i forgot to mention a few things.

yes, obviously, you're right - if energy prices surge from the socket, then that goes hand-in-hand with creating synth fuel as it needs lots of energy.

however, a few things to adress here imho. without a single doubt, the process of making synthetic fuel will become vastly more efficient in due time.
which means, less energy is needed, and as such it's going to become 'cheaper'.
Let's call the place that produces these synth fuels a 'refinery' - for a lack of other wording from my part.
For example, let's take GULF, or SHELL.

Gulf and Shell will benefit from building Synth fuels that can replace fossil fuels. They already have their gas stations, the infrastructure, etc.
Currently, they have their oil refineries which 'make' the fossil fuel for 'our' cars.

Now, lets say they want to switch to Synth fuel.

It's a big process to do this, but let's concider they build their own 'refineries'.
I've seen a video about Porsche doing something like this and how they 'manufacture' in Chile for renewable reasons.

Now let's condider they build a refinery where they make this synth fuel - and the energy they need comes from the same 'socket' as you charge your electric car.
yes, if that price goes up then yes, synth will be way more expensive too.

However, if these refineries build their own power plants - through solar panel, wind turbine and water power - then they will NOT be dependant on the socket,
as they provide it themselves. Obviously the issue here is providing ENOUGH energy to 'fabricate' synth fuel.

However, if - and it's not an If, it's a guarantee - energy prices surge due to there being an insane demand to charge EV's,
then EV's will become more expensive to run and drive.

Meanwhile, GULF and Shell - having their own energy supply - are not dependant on these energy bills, and as such, nothing changes for them.
the price of manufacturing synth fuel remains the same. As the technology will greatly improve, they can drop their 'fuel prices', which makes it interesting for consumers.

Let's put it simpler:

your car runs either on SHELL
or it runs on VATTENFALL

Shell = synth fuel
Vattenfall = EV (electricity).

Prices of Vattenfall get tripled, due to the demand for EV's.
Prices of Shell (synth) drop crazy due to the research and improvement of this fuel.

And we will inevitably fall to an equilibrium to where it doesn't matter in driving an EV,
or driving a Synth. All that will matter is it's 'economy' and practicality.

And let's face it: EV's are going to take longer to 'refill' practically than a combustion vehicle.

These things are why I firmly believe Synth fuel has the future, and EV's do not.

Not the least because of hypercars, the super rich, but ALSO poorer countries, and countries like Mid-Africa.

Liquid fuel is always more practical than battery power.

Now, my original point being was that F1 has the chance to return to V8's, v10s and V12's with Synth fuel.
People claim 'NAH' because it supposedly isn't road-relevant, but first of all, there is no such thing now either, so that is a no-go. Additionally, Synth fuel actually is something road relevant, which is something the 'world' can benefit from. And F1's running V6's and (was) thinking about 4 cylinders because of a 'green' image.
If a V12 and a 4-cylinder make no difference in their 'green' due to both not damaging nature in any way,
then, obviously, there is a great opportunity and reason to bring back monsterously screaming V10 and V12 engines.

After all - a V12 can still be road relevant. The techonology in running a V12 on synth fuel is no different than to running a 4 cylinder. And let's face it, if you can make a V12 super efficient, you can make a 4-cylinder super efficient.

And if given the opportunity; ANY car buyer would prefer to have a Audi A6 or a Mustang with a V8, over a 3-cylinder turbo. And any Ferrari buyer or Lamborghini buyer will gladly have an exotic V12 over a 4cylinder or a full electric.

We're right now in a transition age.

[Just_a_fan]

I guess i forgot to mention a few things.

yes, obviously, you're right - if energy prices surge from the socket, then that goes hand-in-hand with creating synth fuel as it needs lots of energy.

however, a few things to adress here imho. without a single doubt, the process of making synthetic fuel will become vastly more efficient in due time.

Creating synthetic fuel is just a big chemistry set. The chemical bonds are always going to have the same energy requirements to make them. Hydrogen is always going to require the same amount of energy to release it from water (or whatever source you use). CO2 will always require the same energy to capture/liquefy.

If you want to make CxHy from xCO2 and 0.5yH2O then you need the same energy. It's simple chemistry.

The only way you can improve costs is by improving the processes so there is less wastage/leaks/etc.

[adrianjordan]

The cost of Li-Ion batteries has dropped like 95% in 10 years... Why wouldn't synth fuels find a similar reduction when adopted?

Because the high cost of synfuels comes from the poor energy efficiency of production, which is inherent to the processing steps required. If your energy efficiency (in vs. out) is just 6-15% as this guy claims (which matches the 13% from the royal society paper), well, you're paying for a lot of energy you are eventually not using. The synfuels will be as expensive as the energy going in (and price drops in energy price will be equally beneficial for battery vehicles).
That is problematic from a cost perspective, but even more from a sustainability perspective. You need 5x more energy input to get equal energy output in a synfuel car compared to a battery car (of equal weight etc.), as I explained above. As long as energy is limited, you cannot defend such wastes if there is a perfectly fine, much more efficient alternative available.

All valid and good points -
however

Let's look into some other aspects.
For example, LPG has all about lost it's benefit nowadays. Apart from the fact that LPG has a lower calorific value than gasoline - which means you need to consume more LPG compared to Gasoline to achieve the same result, so your 'LPG consumption' will be higher than Gasoline consumption - LPG used to be quite a bunch cheaper in most european countries. It still is, but in The Netherlands nowadays, LPG is the same or even more expensive than Diesel.
Why I mention this is becuase in due time, certain 'things' will become more expensive.

Now, let's look into the electricity bills. They have SURGED the past few years. Energy price is going through the roof, and I can guarantee that it's going to go up even more. People however have little option: they'll still have to pay.
A potential option are solar panels - but first and foremost; these are relatively expensive, and have a limited lifespan. You will have to invest in such a 'device' , and not everybody has those options. Next, you need to have a return of investment.
Solar panels have been steadily going down in their pricing, and their quality has been greatly improved - but this comes as a cost: cheap ones are not good ones, and expensive ones are obviously costly.

But the biggest result from this is that solar panels help drive energy bill prices up. The energy providers are missing out on money, so they'll want to have that back. The only way to is to increase the bill.

Now, let's focus this back on the future of vehicles.

Cars are charged from home outlets. Not every parking spot has this yet, nor every country is facilitated well in this aspect. However, you charge from the outlet, and you pay for the charge. If the electricity price goes up, so does your consume price of the car, just like gasoline if you may. It's not unlikely that there is going to be a system in the future that you pay additional taxes for charging cars: after all, energy has to come from somewhere, and if 'overnight' everybody starts driving EV's then suddenly, everybody needs to charge what, 5 to 10 kwh each DAY.
Try and provide that!

Guaranteed result: energy bill will greatly increase.

Yes, EV's have improved their efficiency too and will more the coming years. But the 'world' will adapt to this too.

Now let's look back at Synth fuels.
As another poster mentioned: you can damn well be sure that the biggest 'obstacle' to produce synth fuels is the 'energy' it cost. This will become much cheaper too fast, especially if there is DEMAND for it.

Additionally, 'normal' gasoline - in more than one country - has added taxes. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that governments will NOT impose those taxes on synth fuels, to motivate the use of said fuels.

All you really have to do is this: look back in history.
There was a time we had no Tesla and no consumer EV's. Then, they came about and it was a select few that went with it. Today, we're 'switching'. Things have changed.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that won't go for Synth fuel. Matter of fact, i absolutely guarantee it.

I will make this prediciton: in 25 years, there will still be many combustion cars around driving on synth fuel.
the world will NOT run solely on EV's.

That said, yes - we're very offtopic.

How much research have you actually done into EV's etc vs synth fuels?

You mentioned capacity to charge EV's, there's a video on the Top Gear YouTube channel where they interview the head of EV infrastructure, or some such title, for the National Grid and the crux of it is that, in the UK at least, we already have capacity for the majority of cars to switch to EV and it won't be a problem because infrastructure is being upgraded faster than people are switching over.

As for energy prices, that's just the free market. They'll always go up. Look at the cost of petrol today compared to 20 years ago. Well above inflation rises.

As for Synth fuel. There isn't currently sufficient capacity to be able to manufacture enough to supply all ICE cars. Simply not possible.

I've watched a number of videos on the EV revolution and on this topic and they universally agree that for the average driver, the future is electric. Synth fuels will be for high performance vehicles where the emotion of an ICE is very much a key part of the driving experience. And yes, we will then likely see V10 and V12 engines making a come back, because the reasons they were made in the first place will once again be true....only this time they'll be carbon neutral.

Porsche have all but confirmed that their entire model range will be moving to either plug in hybrid or pure EV within the not-to-distant future, with one very notable exception - the 911. The latest ICE for the 911 has been designed with synth fuel in mind.

Ferrari will likely stay ICE, maybe with some hybrid tech to improve performance and other manufacturers will likely follow suit.

I see absolutely no reason why F1 couldn't become a halo sport for synth fuels and see a return of V10 engines powered by carbon neutral synthetic fuel. What better way to promote the performance AND get the environmental message across whilst also giving the fans more of a spectacular show!!