Domenicali: F1 pushing sustainable fuels to governments

36 comments on “Domenicali: F1 pushing sustainable fuels to governments”

1. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   20th August 2023, 5:55

   One would logically think the matter to be other way around rather than F1 pushing sustainable fuels to governments.

   Yet another F4 series. UK, French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, US, Middle East, I don’t know exactly how many F4s exist.

   Monza-spec flap for all rear wing configurations – I don’t know how easily doable that’d be in practice.
   1. 

      MichaelN
      20th August 2023, 10:17

      @jerejj Why would one expect that? Most people in politics have no understanding of the physics and science behind many of the things they’re proposing. The object at the moment is ‘net zero’, that’s what the current political climate (excuse the pun) wants from them, and that’s what they’ll (promise to) deliver.

      The means are secondary. So then it becomes a matter of which lobby group makes the best case that convinces both the public and politicians, and legislation will tilt their direction.

      For a long time ‘battery vehicles charged with renewable* energy is best’ has been a pretty solid case (ignoring for the moment how the energy used to charge those batteries is generates, which especially in the US is most decidedly not even close to being renewable. But ‘we don’t have to replace every single vehicle at tremendous environmental and financial cost’ is a very solid argument too, so it’ll be interesting to see how this continues to change the political discussion. Given the investments of car manufacturers in this area, the promised – under political pressure – move to all BEVs by 2030 or something is starting to look ever more unlikely to happen.
      1. 

         Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
         21st August 2023, 8:31

         under political pressure – move to all BEVs by 2030 or something is starting to look ever more unlikely to happen

         As I’m sure you are aware the 2030 deadline is for new car sales only and this is not just politically motivated, the environmental case is overwhelming. Also we are still on the lower end of the ‘S’ curve. In the UK this year so far 1 in 6 new cars sold are BEVs. All of the estimates I’ve seen say by 2030 about 1 in 5 cars on the road will be BEVs and by 2040 about 4 in 5.

         ‘we don’t have to replace every single vehicle at tremendous environmental and financial cost’ is a very solid argument

         Nobody is suggesting this, petrol and diesel cars can continue being used indefinitely provided they can be fuelled and maintained. It’s just that if we a new car is sold it mustn’t be petrol or diesel.
         I would say the 2030 ban is roughly on track.
   2. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      21st August 2023, 7:38

      Given that these sustainable fuels are made either from waste, which has a rather limited scope, and we are actually trying to even REDUCE how much of it there is going to be, or it has a rather less than convincing efficiency from starting energy to getting the fuel in the vehicle and THEN you burn it with about 38-45% fuel efficiency, it makes total sense that F1 is pushing this to governments as a “solution” for the companies investing in the technology.

      Until we manage actual large scale carbon capture at reasonable cost AND achieve availability of electricity at 0 cost for extended periods of time, these fuels will be expensive and rather wasteful to produce at scale. A nice solution to have vehicles race. And a decent solution for stuff that is hard to electrify or even run on hydrogen – like long haul airliners and fighter jets. But not one that will be available soon at scale to make a real step forward in changing how we power our transport.
      I also would expect a competition with the chemistry sector for the hydrogen that is produced from electrolysis with zero emission electricity, since they will also need their inputs.

      IF we had invested into this a decade or so ago and would have it working at scale now (at a reasonable price point) to poor into the millions of vehicles on the roads, oceans, railway-tracks and in the air, it would be great to have and be able to stop digging up oil and gas. But we don’t have that.

      For short haul trucking electricity is far easier, it simplifies the trucks, they can be loaded at night and/or when being docked at the distribution centre. And even for longer range transport it seems like batteries are getting in a price and weight range where they can work. Trains will most likely also switch to mostly electric with use of batteries and loading at stations in combination with overhead lines for higher frequency routes.
2. 

   S
   20th August 2023, 7:15

   F1 may well be ‘pushing sustainable fuels to governments’ but that’s only because sustainable fuels are already in production. Energy companies are the source – F1 isn’t responsible for anything other than advertising what they choose to do.
   F1 are so far behind (again) that it’s almost funny to hear them talk about it as though they came up with the idea.
   Marketing companies and sales people, eh….
   1. 

      MichaelN
      20th August 2023, 10:20

      The FIA is also a lobby group for both motorists and manufacturers, it’s part of their goal to inform politicians the world over on matters related to vehicles of all sorts. They’re just using F1 as, like you say, a part of their marketing strategy. And good for them: F1 is a very well known product that people associate with impressive technology and high performance.
   2. 

      Coventry Climax
      20th August 2023, 15:23

      Sorry, can’t resist:

      Energy companies are the source

      That’s like: What’s the origin of milk? And you answering: The supermarket.

      I’ll crawl back in hiding again now.
      1. 

         S
         20th August 2023, 15:26

         What are you on about?

         Energy companies – yes, that includes oil and fuel producers. Their business product is energy.
         You don’t seem to have caught up with modern terminology.
         1. 

            Coventry Climax
            21st August 2023, 0:06

            What are you on about?

            Well, if that coin didn’t drop..
            1. 

               S
               21st August 2023, 2:05

               Source of the product.
               Not origin of the initial energy creation or delivery.

               How old are you?
3. 

   PacificPR (@streydt)
   20th August 2023, 8:21

   Been trying to find some more information about the production process of Sustainable Fuel and as far as I can find out there might be quite a few drawbacks

   Biofuel production and use has drawbacks as well, including land and water resource requirements, air and ground water pollution. Depending on the feedstock and production process, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy -equivalent basis.

   I am not knowledgeable enough to make a fair assessment but it doesn’t seem to be as great for the environment as one is made to believe. Also I guess every fuel supplier will have it’s own (secret) production process and blend, will there be some monitoring. Or is it all just marketing? I would be very interested in some interviews or thorough research articles on the matter. Does anyone know if there are any?
   1. 

      MichaelN
      20th August 2023, 10:24

      Biofuel is just one possible ‘sustainable fuel’, which does indeed have drawbacks (as everything does).

      It works for now, but that’s not the end goal. There’s a pretty solid explanation about the plans for 2026 in this article published earlier this year: https://www.racefans.net/2023/03/25/explained-the-chemistry-behind-f1s-sustainable-fuel-future/
      1. 

         PacificPR (@streydt)
         20th August 2023, 10:48

         Thanks! I somehow missed it. Good article. I do really like the approach as describe by Pat Symonds. And this gives a bit reassurance

         So we have written the rules very carefully to try and promote the competition to produce fuels in different manners, and yet at the same time not produce a fuel that will be a runaway for whoever does it best

         However I am curious if the big fuel suppliers will be as honest about their intentions and sticking to the rules (having some friends in science I know a lot of the ‘good intentions’ are nothing but white washing schemes).
   2. 

      Coventry Climax
      20th August 2023, 15:16

      Go to wikipedia and search for the laws of thermodynamics. Or other sites; wikipedia tends to be rather technical. ANyway, remember these are laws of nature, so there’s no getting around them.

      Then from the article that MichaelN provided the link for, above:

      By sourcing the carbon and hydrogen sustainably, the fuel can then be considered carbon neutral. Although for the end product to truly be considered worth of such a label, “all the manufacturing and the transport” has to be considered too. F1’s 2026 fossil fuel ban currently only applies to the cars racing on track.

      “When you look at the total carbon footprint in F1 as a sport, our carbon footprint is just over a quarter of a million tonnes. And of that, the amount that’s represented by running our cars around the track is 0.7%. It really is very little indeed.”

      They plan to source the hydrogen from sustainable electricity. The carbon from plants etc. Bottomline, that means the sun and wind, and that’s about the only part where they’re almost correct about it being fully sustainable. But how and from where, replacing what, are the carbon crops harvested, transported, processed etc? It’s not possible to create energy, only to convert energy from one type to another, at a loss – which is heat generally.
      I don’t think I have to explain the difference between really being and being considered. It’s a bookkeepers trick, nothing else. Dump the problem elsewhere, in plain english.

      Given that the average household family car produces about 4.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, at an estimated 1.474 billion cars globally in 2023, you do the math. And that’s just cars.
      Still, F1 is a big contributer. Addressing the .7% of it though, isn’t going to be a big help, and given the amount of time they give themselves, it’s certainly not worth the bragging they do. And that’s saying it very, very politely.
      1. 

         S
         20th August 2023, 15:42

         Thermodynamics is irrelevant as it relates to efficiency and losses – not sustainability.
         Maybe you should look up the meaning of “sustainable” while you’ve got Wiki open.
         1. 

            Coventry Climax
            21st August 2023, 0:18

            Read this then: https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-energy

            Especially this sentence:

            Energy is not created or destroyed but merely changes forms, going from potential to kinetic to thermal energy. This version of the conservation-of-energy principle, expressed in its most general form, is the first law of thermodynamics.
            1. 

               S
               21st August 2023, 2:42

               And that’s true, of course – except that it doesn’t apply here, as the primary source of energy renewable fuels can/are/will be using is being consistently beamed at us as from the Sun.
               It isn’t a closed loop system – it is constantly being fed. Unless something catastrophic happens to the Earth/Sun relationship in the immediate future, using this energy (and there’s a huge amount of it that we aren’t using) is completely sustainable by definition.
               This is why fossil fuels are not considered to be a sustainable energy source – there is a finite amount, and we are depleting it.
            2. 

               Coventry Climax
               21st August 2023, 13:49

               S, you have no idea about the fields I’m educated and hold degrees in, but I can assure you there’s not a big chance you can educate me further in the area of energy or in what sustainable is being sold to be.

               Sustainable is described rather changeable, to say the least, like the word ‘green’, and although the meaning of the word (in dictionaries) is all too clear, for the concept (society’s interpretation and use) there’s certainly not a fixed definition or law – unfortunately. There’s definitions at Wikipedia, and other -0nline- encyclopedias and several organisations such as universities and governmental institutions.
               The UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s ‘definition’ is: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
               That’s pretty vague and -very self centered- describes it as a mankind only issue. While mankind is the cause of the problem, it’s not the only party that suffers from it’s consequences.

               Some say the warmth of the earth is sustainable. Some say nuclear is sustainable.
               When it suits them.

               Don’t try to teach me the origins of the sources of energy on this planet. You forgot tide, where the sun’s influence is, in a sense, a less prominent factor and of a completely different nature, but I’ll forgive you, as the sun’s irradiation provides the largest amount by far. I say in a sense, as the share of it in our available tidal energy may be small, but the gravitational origins of tide would still fully collapse if it wasn’t there any longer.
               Likewise, ‘sustainable’ often conveniently leaves out aspects that may appear small in the calculations, but turn out to be of critical value to the entirety.

               Sure, if you can fully(!) harmlessly convert energy from the sun or tides, sustainable is quite the correct term.
               The problem is, we can’t. Closest to achieving it is Nature, which is what made our planet inhabitable in the first place.

               The next issue is, we, mankind, squander both the non sustainable sources and the little production we do manage. On an ever increasing array of essentially pointless battery operated plastic (fossil) housed gadgets, for example. Or on ‘holidays’.
               With pointless I mean we don’t basically need to support our lives, like food and shelter. It’s luxury. Excessive footprint.
               That’s OK, if there were only a couple of us, but we’re with 8.1 billion currently.

               Yes, transport of electricity is an issue, given losses and the required infrastructure, so I can understand why you’d want to convert it into something more easily transportable. To get to ‘sustainable fuel’ however, it’s all the steps inbetween that worry me, as you end up with an overall efficiency that’s truly ridiculously low, if not negative. And it’s very doubtful, to say the least, whether the idealisation does not also ‘forget’ certain aspects of the calculations and picture drawn. Things that should be included in the calculations simply aren’t, for ‘convenience’ reasons. And that’s where the bookkeepers and advertisers come in, to wipe the inconvenient, dirty things under the carpet. Oh dear, we can’t have the shareholders profits affected, can we?

               Under the carpet is where it becomes the cleaner’s problem.
               So who is the cleaner? Yep, that’s us, this generation and ever increasingly, multiple generations after us.
               Only now, despite being warned for quite some time already, it turns out we won’t be able to clean it at all as it’s going beyond control.
               Go find the amount of wildfire affected hectares, world wide. Look at the graphs of it’s development over the years.
               I doubt you will. Because it’s not a pretty sight and doesn’t fit in your picture. And that’s just fires.

               Then what? Best solution currently? Actually: Drop the bomb. Wipe out half of mankind or more. Yes I know, might affect me too. It’s mankind that uses energy in excess of sustainability, converting it into pollution and loss of biodiversity, all in the name of a ‘way of life’ that’s proven to be not sustainable – in the literal sense of the word. It’s not the butterflies you can blame, or the birds, the fish, dogs, or the flowers.
               It’s mankind, noone else.
            3. 

               Coventry Climax
               21st August 2023, 13:59

               Last sentences ‘fell off’:

               Sustainable fuels will not be the solution and, given it’s efficiency, will not even be part of the solution.
               It’s just another commercial bookkeepers story.

               Feel free to come up with the complete calculations to prove me wrong. Good luck.
4. 

   Diez Cilindros (@diezcilindros)
   20th August 2023, 8:26

   OMG, I think it’s my first in COTD! Thank you! And thank you too for correcting a couple of words: English is not my mother tongue but I try my best.

   @Jere: What I try to say with “Monza-spec” is that, instead of opening the flap to a horizontal position when you activate DRS, let’s rotate it a little bit less, with still a small angle of attack. I said “Monza-spec” just as a reference: I’m aware you can’t use the Monza rear wing construction itself. The target is to gain less kph with the activation for making it harder for the attacker and giving some chances for the defender, and making it less dangerous.
   1. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      21st August 2023, 7:41

      Thanks for your take on this one Diez! Not completely sure it would work, but it makes sense to think about alternatives to the boring way DRS now changes the order on track.
   2. 

      Coventry Climax
      21st August 2023, 14:06

      I had one too, recently. Didn’t suffer the ‘OMG feeling’, but still.
      Tried to express (twice actually) my thanks, like you did, but a glitch somewhere and error messages, prevented that.

      So, triggered by you, I’ll do it here, for what it’s worth: Thanks RF.
5. 

   nordmann (@nordmann)
   20th August 2023, 9:59

   Sorry, but I think COTD overcomplicates the matter. F1 should simply switch to a strategic use of the DRS, as has been advocated by a number of people, eg. Matt Somerfield and others, and as it has been used in iRacing for a number of years. This means: ditch the one-second rule, provide everyone with a set number (or set seconds) of DRS usage per race and then have them use it as they wish for either attack or defence (within the DRS-zones, that is). This would not only eliminate the ridiculously easy passes, but will also rid ourselves of DRS-trains.
   1. 

      Coventry Climax
      20th August 2023, 14:35

      What’s the pount of a limited time or number of times in the first place? What do you achieve with that?

      Let’s simplify even further and ditch the limitation in number of times/amount of time it’s allowed to be used altogether.
      Allow it all the time, anytime, anywhere, anyplace, any occasion. Let the drivers sort out whether it’s OK to use or not. There’s no difference to the pedals and steering wheel already available to them: we don’t limit the use of those either, do we?
      1. 

         S
         20th August 2023, 15:14

         What’s the pount of a limited time or number of times in the first place?

         Strategic variation, obviously.

         Let’s simplify even further and ditch the limitation in number of times/amount of time it’s allowed to be used altogether.

         They tried that before – and removed the option shortly after. That’s how great it is. The entire track became a DRS train…
         They’ve even removed DRS on some straights because there is insufficient deceleration at the following corner. The drivers got scared and labelled it ‘dangerous, and only a matter of time until someone is seriously injured in a huge crash.’

         There’s no difference to the pedals and steering wheel already available to them: we don’t limit the use of those either, do we?

         Interestingly, they are the only things the drivers control alone and unaided, as per the rules. But even then, not completely – as the teams are still telling them how fast to drive all the time. And there are all those buttons and switches on the steering wheel that require the team to tell the drivers how to use them and what settings to use at every moment…
      2. 

         nordmann (@nordmann)
         20th August 2023, 15:48

         “What’s the pount of a limited time or number of times in the first place? What do you achieve with that?”

         What you achieve is the possibility that the attacker still has some DRS while the defender has none left. (Plus the added excitement for the spectators of keeping track of who has still some DRS left.) If it is available all the time then the defender will use it all the time and you would lose the very purpose of the DRS, ie the speed differential. You could of course argue that there is no need for an artificial speed differential. However, in that case there is an even easier solution: to get rid of DRS altogether.
      3. 

         spoutnik (@spoutnik)
         21st August 2023, 12:11

         This would be roughly equivalent to the push-to-pass feature in Indycar. While it could work in some scenarios maybe other issues need to be addressed as well, like the weight of the cars which makes them less responsive, and the venturi effect which forbids the cars to ride the kerbs properly.
6. 

   cdfemke (@cdfemke)
   20th August 2023, 11:51

   Newsflash: european fuel has been 10% ethanol for over a few years now, E10 and E5 fuels are bad for engines and parts in contact with the fuels when a car or mptorbike isnt used daily tho. Standing still the alcohol tends to react with rubber parts it comes in contact with because most cars and bikes were not made for the high alcohol contents
   1. 

      Coventry Climax
      20th August 2023, 14:27

      That’s not news, that’s been known since alcohol was first added. Well, in the automotive world at least.

      Another issue is/was that alcohol is ‘fond’ of water, which means over time, and especially for cars that don’t run that frequently, (engine-)parts may start to oxydize.

      So, when older cars ‘suddenly’ have to run on these fuels, yes.

      Newer cars have parts developed to (better) withstand these issues.
   2. 

      S
      20th August 2023, 15:20

      E10 and E5 fuels are bad for engines and parts

      That may have been (a bit) true 25 years ago, but it certainly isn’t anymore.
      Every new car produced in the last decade (and much, much longer for many manufacturers) is designed and built to accept ethanol blends of 10-15 percent.
      1. 

         BasCB (@bascb)
         21st August 2023, 7:43

         There is a good reason why in many places they sell fuel without it for agricultural vehicles for example, these fuels still clog up diesel engines when they stand still for an extended time.
         1. 

            S
            21st August 2023, 10:31

            You mean e-diesel?
            Again, few industrial engines (which agricultural equipment use) produced in the last decade or so are not designed to accept ethanol.

            Leaving (any) fuel static in (any) engines/fuel systems for extended periods of time can cause problems – with and without ethanol being involved.
            1. 

               BasCB (@bascb)
               21st August 2023, 15:02

               There is no ethanol in argicultural vehicles generally used (certainly in Europe and as far as i know in most of the world) run on Diesel, which cannot be mixed with ethanol, but instead gets mixed with vegetable oil.

               Most vegetable oils are not as temperature stable, so you have to either empty the tanks over the winter, for example when some of the harvesting equipment is not used, or use fuels that do not contain the bio component (and some additives can help, but they are rather less sustainable)
            2. 

               S
               21st August 2023, 16:13

               Ethanol + diesel + emulsifier = e-diesel. It’s a real product.
               Biodiesel (diesel replacement made mostly from vegetable oils and/or animal fats) can be blended with oil-based diesel – commercially available typically as B20 (but can also be produced in other blend ratios).
               Modern diesel engines (including most industrial variants) can accept these fuels without risk.

               Long term storage of any diesel fuel suffers roughly similar issues – oils absorb water over time, for example.
               Indeed, the waxes in diesel can crystallise below at some point below 0 degrees C.
               Exactly what that temperature is depends on the specific blend and additives it uses, as it is common for different blends to be supplied at different times of year and to different climates.

               Whatever diesel fuel it is (organic or fossil-based, blended or straight) it should last for at least 6 months in a decent, sealed container before there is noticeable degradation.
   3. 

      spoutnik (@spoutnik)
      21st August 2023, 12:13

      I learned something, thank you for the info !
7. 

   Coventry Climax
   20th August 2023, 12:55

   All governments have lobbying groups around them or within them, that are far more powerful than you, as the organiser of a one weekend per year event in a select group of countries. Focus on ‘select’ here, and the percentage of them that produce fossil. Dream on. Governments or the politicians I should say, have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about when it comes to environment and technology. They believe everything that looks too beautiful to be true, because they want to believe that: It’s an easy, convenient choice and brings in the voters and the power. The decisions that need to be made here, and probably everywhere, generally aren’t popular and don’t bring you votes.
   Politicians don’t think beyond the term they’re in power. And if they do, it’s about how they can stay in power longer, nothing else.
   If there’s governments that embrace ‘sustainable fuel’, it’s not through F1. Brasil has been running bio fuel (alcohol from sugar plants) for ages already, and A) it was not F1 instigated and B) brings massive problems on it’s own.

   Given Domenicali’s position, he just another politician. And a worse one at that: he’s close to the source of the knowledge and technology, so he should know better, yet he promotes the dream of sustainable fuel. Apparently, either noone ever told him about the laws of thermodynamics, or worse, he chooses to ignore and deny them. Effectively he’s telling us the world is flat.

   “In Austria, we piloted an energy efficient power system that delivered a 90% reduction in carbon emissions from operating the paddock, pit lane and F1 broadcast area.
   “Additionally, a new fleet of biofuel trucks are delivering our broadcast production, technical and other equipment for the European events of the 2023 season, which we expect will reduce our overall freight emissions by a minimum of 60% compared to traditional fuel vapours.

   That only means how retarded your development in these directions have so far, despite worldwide talk and development there for ages already. It’s like claiming you’re doing everything you can, thumping yourself on the chest while saying “I use a 100% less oil to heat my house this year!” when you’ve finally ditched the 100 year old oil burner in favour of gas burning central heating. That’s a step in the right direction alright, but not at the forefront, long overdue and nothing to brag about.

   “We are also encouraged by the increased awareness and openness of governments to include advanced sustainable fuels in their policy roadmaps to net zero, something F1 will continue to be at the forefront of pushing.”

   F1? At the forefront? That’s the best laugh I’ve had in ages. Just a pity the subject is so serious.
   F1, helping governments decide what direction to chose? Is that even your job?
   Domenicali, you’re pathetic.

Comments are closed.