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

[gruntguru]

90% of any motor car cannot be made from renewable resources. The battery is no different and the carbon intensity of battery production is accounted for in the paper I linked.

A biofuel powered car is made from non-renewable resources and runs on fuel that requires 2X as much land and sunlight as a BEV and cannot be produced in sufficient quantities to serve as the sole source of transportation energy.

A synfuel powered car (using atmospheric carbon capture) is made from non-renewable resources and runs on fuel that requires 3X as much land and sunlight as a BEV.

[Ferry]

- Biofuels are a form of energy.

That depends how it's made. If it's made from bio waste it's partially true. For synthetic fuel it's just another energy carrier. You split water with electrolysis to get hydrogen. Then you add CO2 and even more electricity to make liquid fuel. Neither water or CO2 is a energy source in the first place.
Today a lot of hydrogen is produced from natural gas using steam reforming. Even in places like Norway with lots of hydro power available. Why? Why not use electrolysis to produce this hydrogen?

[Ferry]

You battery enthusiasts need to realise batteries are beaten and let it go.

I guess I'm guilty of belonging to the battery enthusiast category. But I'm not fixated on batteries. I'm enthusiastic about good solutions, based on facts, knowledge, science and engineering. That means I can easily change my mind if a better solution comes up. If biofuel is better, I'm all for it! At this point in time I'm not convinced. But I'm open to learn more. I'm certainly not going to be convinced about biofuel (or anything else) just because someone says it's so. It has to be backed up facts, knowledge, understanding and science.

[Just_a_fan]

Today a lot of hydrogen is produced from natural gas using steam reforming. Even in places like Norway with lots of hydro power available. Why? Why not use electrolysis to produce this hydrogen?

Presumably because the electricity is better used in buildings etc., for lighting and running devices/processes. Norway's hydroelectricity makes up something like 95% of their electricity requirements. So if they wanted to make hydrogen, they'd need to find another source for the electricity.

At 55kWh / kg of H2, you need a lot of electricity to make a useful amount of hydrogen. Norway could make 260,000t of H2 per year if they didn't use any of their hydroelectricity for anything else. But then they'd need to burn oil/gas to make electricity for their homes and businesses. I know you know this, but someone else appears not to grasp the concept.

[DChemTech]

I just can’t follow this line of thought. You are in denial at this point.

Well, that's special. You claim you cannot follow the line of thought, in the next line you apparently can follow it sufficiently to claim that I am denial. If you really cannot follow the line of thought, maybe you should tone down a bit.

Batteries and Biofuels don’t produce the same emissions.

That's not what I am saying, is it? What I am saying is that both processes require energy. And yes, energy is energy - it's the same whether you use it to produce biofuels or batteries. In both cases, it matters where you source that energy from. If you can produce biofuels using green energy, then you can also produce batteries using green energy. You just keep on acting if biofuels are produced using green energy by default, and batteries are never produced by green energy. That simply is not true. If F1 wants to claim their biofuels are neutral, they must offset the CO2 emissions/choose renewable sources in biofuel production. But they could also use EV, and offset the CO2 emissions/choose renewable sources in battery & energy production. Exactly the same thing. Hell, they could keep using gasoline, offset the CO2 emissions of that, and claim carbon neutrality there.

Batteries are dirty to produce and biofuels are not. That’s just a fact!

No, it all depends on how you produce them, and how you deal with the emissions. Biofuels cost quite a lot of energy to make - the EROI (energy-return-on-investment) is typically somewhere between 0.8 and 3, depending on the processing method and source. And EROI of 1 means that you are using 1 kWh of energy to produce 1 kWh of biofuel. In other words, if you would produce that biofuel using solely gasoline, the carbon emissions are as high as that of gasoline. 0.8 is even worse. Especially during the first compulsory biofuel-mixing wave (around 2010), it was quite often found adding biofuel to the mix actually made it more polluting, not less, because the sugarcane was harvested with polluting outdated tractors, and processed in coal-fired facilities. Of course, the situation becomes better if you use renewable energy where possible, but once again. exactly the same applies to battery production - you can use renewable energy, too.

And they I mentioned the point of other impacts - which you keep ignoring. For e.g. palm oil, displacement of biomass is a huge portion of the environmental impact - including GHG emissions. In other regions, nutrient runoff may be a big issue with lasting impact on biodiversity, and so on. Now, as I said many times, battery production has many secondary emissions, too, in mining etcetera. I do not know if, looking at the total life cycle, batteries + electricity or ICE + biofuels produce more emissions. It most likely depends on the sourcing of the biomass, the type of battery, the sourcing of the electricity, and more factors. But what you do is just discard all emissions in case of biofuels, and condemn all emissions in case of batteries. That is not a fair comparison, at all. And that's a fact.

I don’t see why you keep saying batteries can be produced in the same way, they cannot.

I am not saying that. Of course they cannot, they are different things. As GruntGuru says, they are not even part of the same stage of the life cycle. That doesn't mean you cannot compare the energy usage and emissions between them - you need to look at the entire life cycle including all stages to decide which techology does better, after all.

They are not recyclable and don’t come from a renewable source like biofuels.

It's been pointed out to you already that they are largely recyclable, and that recyclability gets better. Recyclability is as much a cost challenge as it is a technical one - as techniques get better (cheaper) and raw material prices go up, recycling becomes more worthwhile. This is also one of the development areas I pointed out to you several times.
And when it comes to the renewable resource part; remember that all the emissions from biofuels that I talked about are not related to the fuel itself but to its processing. Yes, I understand that the basic idea of biofuels is that for each CO2 you produce while burning, one CO2 is taken back up by the newly growing crops. But then, as said many times - and ignored by you consistently - there is insufficient biomass to fulfill demands. That a resource is renewable doesn't mean it is abundant.

There is no debate, biofuels are just better at making sustainable carbon neutral fuels than battery production is at making batteries that add to the carbon footprint. Batteries are only good for adding to the carbon footprint and waste footprint.

Well, batteries don't make fuels. But yes, there is a debate on what is better over the total life cycle, if you actually take all emissions into account fairly, and accept that both can be produced with or without green energy. Please keep in mind that at no point I actually claimed that batteries would win this battle, at this time - likely, batteries + electricity are better than poorly sourced biofuels, and worse than properly sourced. But (AGAIN), you also have to look at what developments are likely the coming 20 or so years if you want to decide which one to invest in, so which one wins now is not all that matters. And, as repeatedly pointed out... if there is only 30EJ worth of biofuels to use in a transportation market requiring 150EJ, choices have to be made - and trains aside, consumer cars are the transportation mode least benefitting from long range & high energy density. Even if batteries + energy are more polluting than biofuels, it would still be unlikely biofuels would be used for consumer cars simply because we do not have enough of them.

Biofuels are not a co-product of food production either, I don’t know where you got that from but these second generation bio-fuels don’t even use anything consumed by humans or animals.

I know what second generation biofuels are. The company I work for is involved in making them, as one of the very few players in the world. I don't work in that field myself, but I am aware of how the production process works.

It’s like speaking to a brick wall

You have no idea how many times I wanted to say that to you but did not do so out of sheer decency. Maybe walls need mirrors.

You battery enthusiasts need to realise batteries are beaten and let it go

Mate, I am not a battery enthusiast. I hold a PhD in biochemical engineering. I work for a company active in the field of (amongst others) 1st and 2nd generation biofuels. Now, I am not using this as an argument - I don't want to argue from authority, that's a fallacy. But I do (again) want to indicate that I am reasonably aware of how biofuel processing works. I admit that I am not sufficiently read into the comparative LCAs of electric and biofuel-based transportation, that's why I avoided a quantitative assessment of which option is better, and stuck more with a qualitative reasoning from the perspective of availability and development potential. I am in favor of biofuels, but I am also realistic in their limitations, especially when it comes to availability (and that is possible availability, how much we could produce at best.). Transportation will rely on multiple fuels in the future, I am sure. Electricity, hydrogen ánd biofuels, maybe some synfuels. But with limited biofuels to allocate, it just makes little sense to use them in cars - just as it makes little sense to make planes electric considering the low energy density of batteries.

Now, we keep going in circles. I don't mind watching others do that on sunday afternoon, but in this case it's costing me too much time with too little payback. If you come up with something new, I'll address it. If you keep talking on repeat, I'll leave it at this.

[DChemTech]

Today a lot of hydrogen is produced from natural gas using steam reforming. Even in places like Norway with lots of hydro power available. Why? Why not use electrolysis to produce this hydrogen?

Presumably because the electricity is better used in buildings etc., for lighting and running devices/processes. Norway's hydroelectricity makes up something like 95% of their electricity requirements. So if they wanted to make hydrogen, they'd need to find another source for the electricity.

At 55kWh / kg of H2, you need a lot of electricity to make a useful amount of hydrogen. Norway could make 260,000t of H2 per year if they didn't use any of their hydroelectricity for anything else. But then they'd need to burn oil/gas to make electricity for their homes and businesses. I know you know this, but someone else appears not to grasp the concept.

Also, hydropower is quite a continuous power source, so you're best off using it for baseline demand. There are no peaks/dips that you need to store/mitigate.

[nzjrs]

Now, we keep going in circles. I don't mind watching others do that on sunday afternoon, but in this case it's costing me too much time with too little payback. If you come up with something new, I'll address it. If you keep talking on repeat, I'll leave it at this.

FWIW thank you. I've learned a lot from your replies, and nothing from those of your interlocutor.

[RedNEO]

A useful website to keep up to date with all the latest developments.

https://biofuels-news.com/news/sustaina ... rmula-one/

[Big Tea]

One possible down-the-line gain of bio or synthetic (green) fuels could come from the retention of existing cars v the energy and emissions cost when replacing them with electric cars.

I know it would be a short period, but not inconsiderable.

There was a period in UK where the government knejerked into grants and nagging to replace 'inefficient' heating boilers with new efficient models which saved maybe 10% and the old ones were scrapped 5-10 or more years before the end of their useful life which was far more wasteful and inefficient than allowing the boiler to run until replacement was actually needed. (include the actual replacing as well as construction and disposal)

As will be the case with cars, those with more spending money were more likely to replace the boiler than was newer than the older ones kept as those less well off were less likely to replace an old boiler, so older cars will be those still in use after the date.

It must be better to use older cars on a replacement fuel than to scrap them and produce new battery cars instead, especially if they are already hybrid, which will most likely be the case by the latter end of the decade.

[DChemTech]

One possible down-the-line gain of bio or synthetic (green) fuels could come from the retention of existing cars v the energy and emissions cost when replacing them with electric cars.

I know it would be a short period, but not inconsiderable.

There was a period in UK where the government knejerked into grants and nagging to replace 'inefficient' heating boilers with new efficient models which saved maybe 10% and the old ones were scrapped 5-10 or more years before the end of their useful life which was far more wasteful and inefficient than allowing the boiler to run until replacement was actually needed. (include the actual replacing as well as construction and disposal)

As will be the case with cars, those with more spending money were more likely to replace the boiler than was newer than the older ones kept as those less well off were less likely to replace an old boiler, so older cars will be those still in use after the date.

It must be better to use older cars on a replacement fuel than to scrap them and produce new battery cars instead, especially if they are already hybrid, which will most likely be the case by the latter end of the decade.

Sure, agree there. No problem with biofuels in that respect. Just, this reason doesn't warrant further ICE development.

[RedNEO]

Renewable Fuel or Electric Vehicles? Which is Better for the Environment?

https://www.crownoil.co.uk/news/renewab ... vironment/

*Renewable wins*

[RedNEO]

https://cevfgj5b3yz4nm2kqdypnknhfq-adwh ... n-20122306

Meanwhile, the FIA's technical director, Gilles Simon, reveals in the latest edition of the association's magazine 'AUTO' that the completely sustainable fuels would ideally be ready for use by 2023.

"We don't have a full plan yet, but what I can say is that our goal that we are working towards is 2023," confirms Simon. "It's a bit early to say that by 2023 we'll be using 100 percent sustainable fuels, but that's what we're trying to achieve."

The progression is massive if they can be ready even before the 2025 regs. But politics can hold up things with the Red Bull/engine freeze debacle.

[DChemTech]

Renewable Fuel or Electric Vehicles? Which is Better for the Environment?

https://www.crownoil.co.uk/news/renewab ... vironment/

*Renewable wins*

You still forget availability of biofuels. There isn't enough for all transportation. So it's not the point that it has the best figures (in this particular study) - if something isn't available in sufficient quantity, you have to make choices where to use it. And consumer cars are not the logical place to use liquid fuels if availability is limited. Aviation is.. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Also, I have some reservations on this LCA, and the reporting thereof by crown oil (a company with a vested interest in liquid fuel winning, but that in itself is not an argument without backup). For one, renewable diesel wins only if you cherry-pick the 2 options of BEV and biofuel. If you look at the source, E-gasoline, E-Diesel, E-gas, Plug-n Hybrid and E-hydrogen are tied with 100% renewables, only green electricity stands out.

Another big issue I have with the reporting is that it lists the exact same emissions for a battery powered vehicle on 100% renewables in 2020 and 2030. This implies they (1) did not account for the fact that a greener energy mix will also reduce the emissions in vehicle production, and hence bring down the emissions of vehicle production. Since the vehicle production is the biggest share for the BEV, it will also be most affected by an improvement in this field. And (2), there is no improvement in battery technology at all between 2020 and 2030 (while in reality it is a rapidly developing field). I would love to see which assumptions go into the emission quantification of vehicle production, but unfortunately the report is not very clear about which source they used to get the number - and I don't have time to dig through all their sources.

It also is a bit obscure what they include in well-to-tank emissions for biofuels. It seems, from the image, they include transportation and production emissions. However, that would mean that secondary effects of land use &c are excluded. Again, a more elaborate source would be great.

Finally, they consider one particular class of car. The numbers may be different for other classes.

So yes, I have strong reservations with this article. Judging from the limited info that is available, they seem to omit secondary emissions, they omit the impact of energy mix in vehicle production (both the change between 2020 and 2030, and the option of using 100% renewable in vehicle production), they omit any potential technology improvement in battery tech, and consider 1 class of car. Finally, this is a blog post by an oil company based on a non-peer reviewed magazine article that is vague in its sourcing; it's not a full-fledged LCA from a peer-reviewed scientific journal which clearly states the assumptions.

[NL_Fer]

This a fair article about synth-fuel. Like i already said, it will have it’s purpose. But it will not replace battery EV’s. Synth-fuel can be great to run ships, planes or niche sportscars. But to expensive and inefficient to become the major choice for cars and trucks.

https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/will ... ssic-cars/

[Big Tea]

Guys, I dont know why the arguement, it is reasonably clear the at least in the short to mid term it is going to be a mix of both, probably both in most vehicles.

When they crack fusion it will be a game changer, but that is 10 years off and has been for 20 years


Edited from fission mistype to fusion, thanks for the correction.