F1 claims new synthetic fuel will provide same power and cut emissions by 65%

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 has given further details of its plan to introduce synthetic fuels in order to meet its goal of becoming a net-zero producer of carbon emissions.

The series is targeting its 2030 season for the introduction of a new fuel formula which it claims will match current performance levels, slash emissions and be entirely sustainable.

The laboratory-developed synthetic fuel will be produced using a combination of sources including carbon capture from the atmosphere, waste and biomass (not from food sources). This will yield a fuel which, as well as being renewable, produces fewer emissions when it is burned. F1 claims the resulting fuel will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by “at least 65%”.

Several car manufacturers are already looking to synthetic fuels as a means of providing a less polluting and more sustainable alternative to petrol for the global fleet of almost 1.5 billion cars, without having to modify their internal combustion engines. Porsche, which F1 is courting as a potential engine supplier, is building a synthetic fuel production plant in Chile (pictured).

However there are doubts over how successfully synthetic fuels can meet the world’s need to reduce the emissions produced by transportation and other uses of petrol. Scaling up production is one challenge: Worldwide consumption of liquid fuels is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels of over 100 million barrels per day next year. That’s more than 15.9 billion litres per day, which dwarfs Porsche’s projection that their plant’s capacity will reach 550 million litres by 2026.

Harnessing electricity to produce liquid fuel is also a less efficient means of storing energy than using that electricity to power a car directly. However the significantly greater performance of Formula 1’s hybrid cars compared to their all-electric Formula E counterparts illustrates the difficulty of achieving F1 levels of performance with electricity alone.

Formula 1 will reduce the proportion of fossil fuel in its current petrol blend from 95% to 90% next year when it switches to E10 fuel, which is 10% ethanol.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articles, F1 newsTags , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 75 comments on “F1 claims new synthetic fuel will provide same power and cut emissions by 65%”

    1. I’ll say it again. The so called ‘green and sustainable fuel’ in F1 was just a PR stunt. 10% ethanol? Brazil already using 25% plant based ethanol fuel. Indonesia already using 30% plant based methanol fuel. Both by destroying millions hectares tropical rain forest.

      1. The use of ethanol is an indisputable positive.
        Governments do need to be on top of their environmental management, however. But that’s true of any other resource too.
        It’s not like battery production and life-cycle is much better…

        1. Ethanol has questionable economic and environmental merit. Especially in the US where it is based on subsidized corn production. It’s main value is to support agricultural political interests.

          1. Yep. I’m a Yank and this is true. Ethanol production involves fuel for farm machinery, fertilizers, distillation, et al and consumes more energy than it produces. A major reason for 10% ethanol in gasoline (petrol) here in the US of A is to support farmers. Without government subsidies this program would vanish.

        2. Ethanol can only be favorably made if grown from crops in a few countries where the yield is high. USA is not one of those.
          People forget that good old oil is very efficient at getting to a refinery, by pipe. Whereas crops need harvesting and transport, with less yield, more so. It’s not harvested by fairy’s and rainbows, its done by diesel power..

      2. Sugar Cane is not raised in rain forest terrain. You should know that. Slightly over 50% of Brazil’s sugar cane production is in São Paulo state, where there’s no rain forest. In Brazil we use 22-27% ethanol to reduce gasoline price and improve it’s quality. We can get Ron over 95 without tight quality control on gasoline production.

        Why not run 100% sugar cane ethanol (we have cars running solely on ethanol for years)? It’s specific energy is greater than gasoline, you can run higher compression rates…

        1. So, do you think using millions hectare of ‘non rain forest’ to develop monoculture sugar cane is better for environment?

          1. It’s already been used for that. Other vegetables are used for ethanol production, but none are as good or efficient as sugar cane.

            What is your suggestion for these million of hectares? Due to your lack of knowledge on the rain forest issue it seems that you are a little bit reactive

            1. The point is, if the so called ‘environmental friendly’ plant base fuel getting traction and being use worldwide, how many billions monoculture land needed to cover the demand? How is that’s not a concern?

              And what about compatibility? That Porsche synthetic fuel basically a hydrogen plant which then convert to methanol. Which mean it more compatible with diesel and palm oil. So to scale it to worldwide would need to tear down millions more rain forest in Indonesia and Malaysia.

            2. Coventry Climax
              6th October 2021, 13:07

              And where, do you think, Augusto, did these millions of hectares come from in the first place? Demolished urban area? Or was it once (rain or other) forest or nature/habitat too? Look at the production of palm oil. Millions of ha’s of nature are destroyed in favor of these monocultures. Monolcultures are an environmental problem on their own as well.
              Seems to me your accusation of ‘lack of knowledge of rainforest’ hits you right back in the face, as you apparently are unaware you can’t single out rain forest: The environment -and the massive and increasing problems we have with it- are all interwoven with any plot of nature around the world, and as such the direct result of lifestyle combined with overpopulation. And that’s a scientific fact, not simply a meaning, idea or religion.

          2. I just made some quick maths and if we were to entirely replace all of the world’s oil consumption with sugarcane ethanol, you’d need 13,91 million square kilometers of the stuff, assuming a 1:1 conversion.

            That might seem an awful lot but that is less than one-third of the area currently used for raising livestock…

            1. That’s a great stat, if accurate! Shows the value and importance of eating less meat.

              Does your measure of “area used for raising livestock” include land used for growing animal feed?

            2. Except that you would have to burn about twice the volume of alcohol to equal gasoline engine output. Look at the stochiometric ratios for gasoline vs alcohol in an ICE……

            3. Coventry Climax
              6th October 2021, 13:13

              You give no insight in how your calculations were made, so their level correctness can not be estimated. But assuming your calculations are correct, you’d need that -polluting- livestock area too, because people want to eat, generally. And then there’s the area needed for crops, housing, factories, shops, transport, recreation etc etc. It’s never ever this OR that, it’s alway this AND that.

          3. @ruliemaulana, I’m no fan of using landmass and fresh water to produce sugarcane -> ethanol*. But almost anything is better than releasing the fossilised carbon captured safely underground.

            * rather give me sun, wind, tidal or even non-carbon power sources (i.e. atomic).

            1. and if we look at F1 like a laboratory for basic research ?

      3. I love how PR types here are parsing the language—torturing it to make it seem like they are promoting real progress when all that’s really happening is commotion, sleight of hand, and dollars no doubt being clocked. The physics and chemical formulas of combustion are clear. The whack economics of ethanol and bio fuels are also clear. They’re smearing Vaseline on the publics’ goggles and telling ’em how things look. lol

    2. Don’t F1 teams already use customized and special fuel in all their cars?

      Would the teams move to a standardized fuel?

      1. They do use custom race fuel specifically for F1. It is not publicly available for purchase.

        They don’t need to go to a single fuel – it’d still be the same premise as now, but with a renewable element to the fuel and its production process. Each fuel supplier would be expected to produce a fuel that meets certain technical standards, but there is some room for competition/customisation.

        1. Coventry Climax
          6th October 2021, 13:15

          That is your interpretation, but don’t be surprised if that’s another thing the FIA will standardize.

          1. Oh Yes — the contemporary Mantra of Standardization … to make F1 as meaningless as possible, while making it more & more as foreseeable as possible — what a charming — if not thrilling outlook for a sport …

    3. Several car manufacturers are already looking to synthetic fuels as a means of providing a less polluting and more sustainable alternative to petrol for the global fleet of almost 1.5 billion cars, without having to modify their internal combustion engines.

      Not one credible car company does this.

      And why would they? They are not in the business of keeping old cars on the road in general, and polluting cars with their emblems specifically.

      “Synthetic” fuels are a pure play by the countries and companies controlling the world’s supply of hydrocarbons, as they are the ones to be removed from power, and consequently, wealth, as the world slowly but surely switches to renewable sources of energy and BEVs for personal transportation.

      Which brings us back to Formula 1, the places it chooses to race at (for money), and the companies it chooses to be sponsored by.

      1. Are Porsche not a credible car company?

        1. In terms of the “global fleet of 1.5 billion cars”, no, they are not.

          They are however a brand that has traditionally protected its history and supported those desiring to use their Porsches for decades, which is why I would expect Porsche’s interest to be concentrated on providing its existing legacy cars with the means to be driven even as Porsche the car producing company quickly moves its products to BEV platforms.

    4. It’s a good start, but why not jump straight into Electric technology and be the world leader. It is inevitable that F1 will have to go Electric during this decade, with how fast that technology is moving, so i don’t get the stop gap hold up.

      1. kpcart – Answer to your question = Formula E. Boring, uninteresting, sounds like a large Scaletrix set with tyre noise.

      2. Because electric tech is nowhere near ready to achieve performance of current F1 cars. Increased electrification of the engine, yes. Full electricity, no.

        And no, F1 legally cannot go electric this decade as they have a contract with FE. Frankly anybody who wants to watch a full electric spec series (which F1 is already becoming) should just go watch FE instead, that is the whole point of that series.

        1. kpcart @yaru Yeah of course F1 will not be going electric any time soon (apart from the legality as is well pointed out) as they are soon going to be settling on their next pu and we know that it will be another hybrid, likely starting in 2026, and then running for who knows how long. The current pu will have had a 12 year run by 2025, not counting the development work on it, pre-2014’s introduction. So right off the bat it doesn’t take much speculation to know that F1 will not be going fully electric ‘during this decade.’

          I do get that there is progress in electric technology, but from all I have seen so far there is still a big issue of actual real life range one can go in an EV. Particularly as soon as one needs heating or air conditioning. And there’s also the question of the infrastructure required to handle the speculative much higher volume of EV cars on the road.

          No, I think it is going to be hybrid for most people for quite a time yet. I’m not anti-EV at all, but so far there is nothing out there for me and that is primarily because of the limited range of them and/or the lack of convenient and rapid recharging.

          1. @robbie

            I do get that there is progress in electric technology, but from all I have seen so far there is still a big issue of actual real life range one can go in an EV. Particularly as soon as one needs heating or air conditioning. And there’s also the question of the infrastructure required to handle the speculative much higher volume of EV cars on the road.

            *Real world takes into account using accessaries e.g. air con, heather,radio, sat nav e.t.c.
            Tesla Model S Long Range: Manufacturer’s official range in km: 603/Approximate real-world km: 523.
            Volkswagen ID.3 Tour: Manufacturer’s official range in km,: 540/Approximate real-world miles: 474.
            Polestar 2: Manufacturer’s official range in km: 469/Approximate real-world km: 394.
            Skoda ENYAQ IV: Manufacturer’s official range in km: 508/Approximate real-world km: 440.
            Kia e-Niro 64kWh: Manufacturer’s official range in km: 453/Approximate real-world km: 378.

            No, I think it is going to be hybrid for most people for quite a time yet. I’m not anti-EV at all, but so far there is nothing out there for me and that is primarily because of the limited range of them and/or the lack of convenient and rapid recharging.

            I have used the stats from Canada so they’re relevant to you. I can’t see an argument for range issues here, it does infact show to huge improvement in EV tech over the last decade or so.
            Moving into the second half of this decade will see more advancement providing more range with a cosponsoring drop in charge times. As for the infrastructure, I think you will find most western countries will be able to build sufficient charging points and increase power supply with minimal lag.
            Also you need to take note that most EV owners also have a home charging point fitted. So again looking at the actual distance travelled, range is of little consequence.
            I didn’t bother checking the distanced travelled on holidays, but most people really don’t travel that far when driving.
            Commuting in Canada’s Major Cities
            Toronto is Canada’s largest city, and a major center to which a large number of people commute every day. Many drivers commute from surrounding cities, such as Mississauga, which is a 54 km round-trip commute, to as far away as Barrie, a 188 km round-trip, adding up to a lot of hours spent on the road. This infographic shows how far these drivers go in an average year. The average commute in Toronto tops the list for major Canadian cities, at 32.4 minutes one-way. This means that those commuting to Toronto – or even within the city – are spending more time commuting than those in any other Canadian city. Nearby cities have similar commute times – Oshawa’s average commute is 31.8, and Barrie drivers average 29.6 minutes.

            Another of Canada’s biggest urban centers, Calgary, has an average one-way commute of 27 minutes. As Canada’s fastest-growing city according to Statistics Canada, Calgary is likely to see more traffic and even longer commute times in coming years.

            Vancouver and Montreal are both pushing the 30 minute mark, with an average of 29.7 minutes in Montreal and 28.4 minutes in Vancouver. Ottawa’s average one-way commute is 26.3 minutes, and Edmonton comes in close to the national average at 25.6 minutes. All of these major cities have longer commute times than the nation as a whole.

          2. No, I think it is going to be hybrid for most people for quite a time yet.

            You can see the value put on hybrid technologies by one of its pioneers, Toyota, trying to trick other car companies into misdirecting R&D efforts into hybrid power trains by waiving the licence fees on 24,000 hybrid-related patents 2 1/2 years ago.

            Unfortunately for Toyota, no one seems to have taken their bate and so they are caught in a bit of a pants-down moment while their own BEV efforts come to market maturity.

            Hybrids are a dead end. They will always be more complex than BEVs, have higher maintenance than BEVs, be less efficient than BEVs, and more expensive to produce. Right now, hybrids exist to greenwash traditional car manufacturers’ CO2 outputs in countries that allow often-fictional EV use to be part of CO2 accounting.

    5. If this has the ability to change to overall market place for ICE fuel, great. But as way of reducing the emissions of the sport it’s oversold—-the race cars produce a fraction of the emissions attributable to the sport. If we can put this in the airplanes and trucks etc it would be great too

      1. If this has the ability to change to overall market place for ICE fuel, great.

        It has not, the inefficiencies are simply atrocious, making the final “synthetic” fuel completely unviable as a marketable product.

        1. Hahaha. They make methanol from hydrogen which already source of energy. And doing so by producing hydrogen from electrolysis powered by wind mill that creates electricity which already source of energy.

          Hey, at least they can say it’s Sustainable Net Zero Carbon fuel by Aramco.

        2. @proesterchen synthetic fuels will always be vastly more inefficient than using electricity directly.

          But replacing 1.5 billion cars is going to require a monumental amount of resources… and time. Not to mention the waste.

          So, even if we were to stop manufacturing any and all ICE vehicles and only sell EVs worldwide from today, the existing ICE vehicles will continue polluting for many decades to come.

          Why not both? Reduce the emissions of the existing 1.5 billion vehicles by 65% whilst simultaneously transitioning the electric.

          1. The simple truth is that the moment anyone puts the actual at-the-pump prices to “synthetic” fuels, which everyone touting them as (part of) a solution conspicuously tries to avoid btw, it becomes clear that they are, generally speaking, speciality fuels targetted at high-wealth individuals wanting to keep their ICE-driven investment vehicles on the road.

            To the rest of the world, “synthetic” fuels simply aren’t a viable stop along their road from their current ICE cars to their future BEVs. (i.e. long before you can afford filling your old clunker with “synthetic” fuels you’re already in a position to replace it with a much more modern BEV and benefit from much lower running costs.)

            1. @proesterchen Indeed it’s no secret that the costs of synthetic fuels is high, Paddy Lowe specifically called this out in his Beyond The Grid interview. But to call it a conspiracy? That seriously erodes any credibility to your opinions; and not just on this matter.

              Scaling production will bring costs down. The same thing was once said for renewable energy—and now it’s demonstrably the cheapest form of energy available (particularly in Australia, where I live).

              Regardless, I’m not sure how you think trashing 1.5 billion vehicles and replacing them is “green” in any shape of form. The resources required to manufacture new vehicles is monumental. The green thing is best to leave those resources in the ground.

      2. Obviously having the race cars produce less emissions isn’t an overall solution to environmental problems. But it is a great way to for example showcase if a technology works. Even a small change in a high-profile place like F1 can lead to important world-affecting decisions being taken later on. Basically, if you want politicians to act on a problem you have to give them hints of the solution and let them think the idea is theirs before they will adopt it on a grader scale.

        1. Coventry Climax
          6th October 2021, 13:44

          How about first showcasing if staying out of Bahrein, China, Azerbaijan, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar helps the world get rid of totalitarian regimes, and adds to F1’s credibility? Even if a small change … etc. – your words.

      3. Coventry Climax
        6th October 2021, 13:37

        That’s one factor to it. The other is you’ll still need oil for lubrication, protection, cleaning and cooling – and quite a lot of it. Any bus or truck easily carries some 30 liters of it, and cars generally carry some 5 liters. And it needs to be changed at specific intervals. Even if it is fully synthetic, it’s still oil, and requires energy to produce, recycle, destroy. Most of it ends up in diesel for ships, as there’s practically no environmetal requirements for those, which adds to the carbon problem again.

        1. You gave me a great idea. F1 should run on bunker fuel—a 100 percent upcycled fuel source—with 8 liter capacity I-4 diesel engines and smoke stacks.

    6. The problem with the electric cars in races is the batteries not they luck power. If the batteries in the same size can hold double the amount of energy then you have double the power. The big companies lately try to make batteries that are more powerful and can lay longer.
      I think a possibility of changing the battery pack in a pitstop can eliminate the problem immediately. Imagine a side slot that can interchange battery packs. You could have also strategic decisions like, use less power to last longer and do 1 pitstop or go full power and do 2 pitstops.

      1. Typo: last longer not lay longer.

        1. Coventry Climax
          6th October 2021, 14:04

          Typo: they lack power, not they luck power,
          but hey, we can read through them – most of the time.
          What you mean to say is about energy density, the amount of energy per amount of weight.
          Lithium Ion Polymeres (LiPo’s) are used in model aircraft. There, they generally want the most energy in the least weighing package. The problem with those however, is safety; they need to be handled, charged and stored with a lot of care, are prone to catching fire, especially after damage or shock, and that is something we’d rather not have in our cars, be it daily or race.
          I’m sure there will be new technologies emerging though, that will do the job, and safely. It’s just a matter of how much effort is put into the research. And there’s a trade off: if charging is widely available, cheap, safe, easy and swift, it’s not so much an issue anymore if the range is a bit less. The Dutch are currently looking into using street lamps as charging stations, and I can tell you there’s a lot of those about. There’s options, if you’re willing to look for them.
          All the hybrid mumbo jumbo is just to prolongue the life of the combustion engine and the return on money associated with all the R&D, production facilities etc.

      2. You’ll need 6-7 pitstops at least with current battery tech.

        1. Coventry Climax
          7th October 2021, 20:20

          We already have 1 extra, prolongued pitstop in the weekends with this sprint thing. In the other ones, there’s alway mr. Masi with his finger ready on the red flag button fulltime.
          I think you’re exaggerating with the 6 to 7 stops, but even if, I thought pitstops added to the strategy options?

    7. lol 2030. real forward thinkers at F1.

    8. Synthetic fuels are probably the best solution for F1, they can keep the current performance and similar engines and still produce sound to keep fans who want volume happy.

      I don’t think they’re the solution for the general population though, simply because there isn’t enough land to grow fuel and food (and the increasing demand for woodland).

      1. @glynh non-food biomass. Also there’s lots of bio-waste which can be used. And capturing the carbon from the atmosphere cleans the skies too.

    9. It’s good that they want to do something, but they really need to avoid any green washing. If it doesn’t scale so road cars can realistically use it, it’s pointless.

      It would be much easier and cheaper to just offset F1’s emissions. They could achieve this quicker and there wouldn’t be any kind of anti environment “blue hydrogen” type taint. They could still claim environmental points through increasing hybridization of carbon ofsets.

    10. Part of the solution is so taboo it’s almost never even mentioned: fewer babies. Less humans -> less energy used.

      Simples! It just flies against every evolutionary instinct.

      1. @zann World population growth is slowing.

        1. @johnrkh That means the world population is growing. It’s too large already and most of the world uses a fraction of the energy per head of the USA and Europe. So if it’s 9 to 11 billion and everyone catches up, it’s going to need more than a synthetic fuel.

          1. @zann

            So if it’s 9 to 11 billion and everyone catches up, it’s going to need more than a synthetic fuel.

            Indeed.

    11. Why wait until 2030?! The technology is already available (as demonstrated by the Porsche plant) and the 2026 engines would be an ideal time to introduce a sustainable fuel.

      (Thinking aloud, I guess the major oil company sponsors would walk away — boo hoo)

      1. My first thought as well – 2030? F1 has become a bit of a Titanic, not that it’s a sinking ship really, but that it has become too big a ship with too small of a rudder to make any turns on time. This stuff is happening now, 9 years from now F1 won’t have the lead on it. Five years maximum would have been a more reasonable time frame, I think.

    12. My goodness there’s a lot of complaining about this. Most fans want to keep ICE, and they want F1 to be innovative and well funded, and they want FOM to make decisions, and then when they do they can only complain about it.

      I’m cautiously optimistic about this for a number of reasons:
      1. Full electrification does seem the most viable long term solution for many use cases, but it also is unlikely to be the best solution for all use cases.
      2. Some sort of fuel is likely to be either part or all of the solution for the foreseeable.
      3. Most petrochemical companies are looking for something that can sustain them and their profits, which is why they are all investing in alternative fuels, so whilst they’re still dependent on dino juice, they know it has a limited life span and if they can find something else that works and makes a profit, they’ll jump at it.
      4. F1 wants to “keep the noise” of ICE, using alternate fuels allows that.
      5. F1 wants to create opportunities for investment and for marketing. Getting companies to invest in developing more “eco friendly” fuels and then be able to market it meets both those objectives.
      6. 2030 seems a long way away, but the engine regulation cycle and development lead times mean that this is realistic.

      All in all, I hope that they succeed in getting new or continuing investment from the petrochemical giants, that there is significant research and development and increase in capacity in more “eco friendly” fuel sources, that F1 can achieve its goal of carbon neutrality, that it can market it as such, that it can lead to “road relevance” and that us fans can continue to enjoy the racing and hear the noises made by wonderful ICE.

      A man can dream can’t he?

      1. Coventry Climax
        6th October 2021, 14:45

        The pinnacle of motorsports can easily use traditional fuels for their cars, since, of all the fuel used worldwide, F1 uses just a tiny percentage. Being what you claim to be, that pinnacle, requires you to be a front runner, not the lagger F1 currently is. F1 claims to be road relevant, with the ‘new’ things invented in F1 becoming available in the ordinary car for the wider public. Truth is, most of the things used in or invented for F1 will never make it to the larger public, for the simple reason that going round a circuit is a completely different purpose than comfortably moving people from A to B. As a sportscar owner, I regularly tell interested people at the gas station that their car is better than mine in every single aspect. But one: driving. Truth is, the majority of people choose a car that brings them to work, tows a caravan, supports a roof rack, provides room for gramps and granny on the backseat on weekends, has airconditioning and heated chairs, provides easy to get into, high seats, takes the sleeping policemen and potholes easily and has a christmas tree for a dashboard. Double wishbone suspension? Rearwheel drive? On a roadcar?
        Then F1 carries a slogan to promote inclusiveness, yet races in countries with, to say the least, very debateable laws and governments.
        All of it, the full 100%, is just commerce. It’s owned by an investment company, for C’s sake! With shareholders expecting profit, pronto and abundantly please.
        And it’s fine, just don’t pretend it’s a sport, don’t pretend you can be environmentally friendly, don’t pretend you’re about inclusiveness.
        Start explaining what you really are and what you really aim for, and you might be amazed by how the fans take it.
        Talking about dreaming: My wish would be F1 would stop the hypocrisy, stop the pretense.

        1. Truth is, most of the things used in or invented for F1 will never make it to the larger public, for the simple reason that going round a circuit is a completely different purpose than comfortably moving people from A to B.

          Just like the use of carbon fiber or the semi-automatic gearboxes… Oh wait !

    13. How much energy and emissions are created to make this synthetic fuel to then save up to 65% on emissions?

      1. My interpretation is that the 65% reduction figure includes production losses of the fuel. Otherwise it would be 100% since fully synthetic fuel would only release emissions that was already “recycled” from the atmosphere.

      2. @homerlovesbeer

        The process of manufacturing these fuels are pretty energy intensive. I doubt the core processes involved can be powered by renewables, simply because of heat and pressure required. Carbon Engineering is a pretty cool company that does this, their website is quite detailed on how the process works.

        I’m not sure who crunches these numbers, but a 65% reduction overall, supply chains included does seem a bit far fetched. I would believe if they are saying its 65% out of the exhaust pipes across the grid.

    14. F1 uses fuel so expensive, It might aswell be fully synthetic made from captured carbon and whatever else.

      10% ethanol is a joke.

    15. Biomass another word for saying cut the forest. That is a big sham.

      1. @maxv do you have an actual source in relation to that plant, or are you making that up based on misaligned assumptions?

        Hmmm

        1. Biomass is being made of cutting trees in Canada and diesel boating it across the ocean. That’s what they call clean in Holland.. I will try to find a source, it was on TV. Let’s see if I can find a written version.

        2. @justrhysism hereby a link, there is much more, found this one a quite well weighed article with pros and cons.

          https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-energy-green-or-dirty/

          Of course there are biomass plants misusing the cycle, taking subsidies and just buying forest cut pellets. This kind of breaks the cycle. You wouldn’t be surprised to see that this is the majority of what will and is happening. It’s economic to kill the planet..

          1. @maxv That article is in relation to using biomass as a fuel source to produce electricity (by burning it).

            Before making judgement, I think we need to understand exactly how biomass is used in the production of synthetic fuels. Is it used as a heat source? Or is it a chemical source for the product itself? These questions are important.

            If indeed the biomass is just a power source, then yes all the problems that article outlines exist and that’s a problem.

    16. Where are the engines for F1 going to come from in 2030? Manufacturers are currently rolling out their final car ICEs. They are in the process of laying off their engine R&D teams.

      There will be no mass market car engine manufacturers around in 2030. Specialty shops cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sport.

      It is a bit sad in a way, because there is a lot of very interesting technology that came too late for the ICE. Like laser ignition or camless engines. Compression ignition at least made it, if only for Mazda.

      1. Coventry Climax
        6th October 2021, 15:00

        Wikipedia: ‘The diesel engine, named after Rudolf Diesel, is an internal combustion engine in which ignition of the fuel is caused by the elevated temperature of the air in the cylinder due to the mechanical compression; thus, the diesel engine is a so-called compression-ignition engine (CI engine).
        So, compression ignition engines have been running since 1893.
        I’m much more impressed with the (involved) variable compression technology, but probably you mean the same.
        Mazda is also one of the very few to have experimented with the Wankel or rotary engine, which even made it to production twice, in their RX sportscars. Back in the sixties/seventies, we had the NSU Ro 80, with a wankel too.

      2. I think the death of the ICE has been greatly exaggerated. We lack the grid, generation capacity, and recharging infrastructure to chuck them in the dustbin right now. Additionally, the greenness of electric cars is massively oversold. The break-even point on an electric car or hybrid for emissions is years into ownership.

        The interesting thing about F1’s role in this story is that the sport has broken the previous “rule” than ICE cars can’t get much over ~30 percent efficiency, even with battery assist. The current PU’s shatter this idea. But somehow F1 has failed to tell and sell this story. Instead it’s, sorry about the noise, we will put a vuvuzela on the exhaust or something.

    17. We have the E Niro and get over 300 miles in summer probably about 250 in summer its an amazing car.
      When i first drove it i thought why has it taken this long to do this. 0-60 in 5.8 secs in a family SUV!

    18. As we all know, F1 is responsible for more climate change than even our ever-evolving planet.

    19. I am a bit over-thrilled by the “challenging” lead time / frame …
      2030 sound s like — NOW … ;-)

    20. Who cares what a grid of F1 cars emit. Maybe they should avoid flying the globe with the whole circus. Now that would cut emissions…

    Comments are closed.