F1 Fuel Developments and discussion.

[Everso Biggyballies]

OK I thought that with fuel being one of the key areas of change both this year and into the future it was time we had a dedicated to discuss all things fuel. It is going to be a major part of how engines are developed within this current era and moreso with the new engine fuels for 2026. That and the overall objective for F1 to become carbon neutral blah blah blah.

So if you have a fuel related rant or news here is the place to air it. Anything to do with fuel, be it Hydrogen, Fermented potatoes, processed cow dung or any of the fancy proposals. Anything to do with how we do / will power an engine in an F1 context.

A bit of brief background to this year..... we know the level of ethanol within the fuel is now being set to 10% minimum and this has increased from 5% last year. As we have all been told ethanol is the way to minimise or reduce the evil fuel that F1 survives upon.

It has already been seen as a major obstacle for the PU people to contend with. I posted some stuff elsewhere here (in the testing thread) from the Merc engine bloke where he discussed issues the ethanol increase is having. Amongst other stuff. Here is what he said about fuel....

Two key issues with the engines they need to come to grips with as they offer changes to how the engines will need to work..... one is dealing with the cars new handling characteristics and how they deliver power, but perhaps the biggest change is that of fuel. We all know that the teams fuel suppliers spend an awful lot of time perfecting their brews within the regs, but the major change in fuel regs this year is the move to fuel with a higher bio content.

Mercedes Formula 1 power unit boss Hywel Thomas says the move from E5 to E10 fuel for 2022 represents the biggest regulation change of the hybrid era.optimising their PUs to work more effectively with the higher bio content. Combustion has been one of the main areas of focus.

Interestingly it is said that the change to E10 fuel was one of the key reasons why Red Bull fought hard to retain full development support from Honda over this winter and into the new season.

So anything fuel related here is the place to discuss.....

[Everso Biggyballies]

So the background set here is the first area of controversy to have come up today.

You know how we have all been led to believe that ethanol is going to be one of the saviours of our planet, and canola oil used for fuel was in the short term anyway, the way to go......

Until today..... I have just seen a report that poo-poos such thoughts. In fact it seems ethanol based fuel is worse for the environment than good old gasoline.

This article is very much a US based account, but I assume that ethanol is ethanol regardless of where it is refined so I am thinking if US ethanol is bad all ethanol is bad.... seems fair thought at this stage anyway.

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

(Reuters) - Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradicts previous research commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showing ethanol and other biofuels to be relatively green.

President Joe Biden's administration is reviewing policies on biofuels as part of a broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050 to fight climate change.

“Corn ethanol is not a climate-friendly fuel,” said Dr. Tyler Lark, assistant scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment and lead author of the study.

The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.


Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol trade lobby, called the study "completely fictional and erroneous," arguing the authors used "worst-case assumptions [and] cherry-picked data."

Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a law enacted in 2005, the nation's oil refiners are required to mix some 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into the nation's gasoline annually. The policy was intended to reduce emissions, support farmers, and cut U.S. dependence on energy imports.

As a result of the mandate, corn cultivation grew 8.7% and expanded into 6.9 million additional acres of land between 2008 and 2016, the study found. That led to widespread changes in land use, including the tilling of cropland that would otherwise have been retired or enrolled in conservation programs and the planting of existing cropland with more corn, the study found.

Tilling fields releases carbon stored in soil, while other farming activities, like applying nitrogen fertilizers, also produce emissions.

A 2019 study from the USDA, which has been broadly cited by the biofuel industry, found that ethanol’s carbon intensity was 39% lower than gasoline, in part because of carbon sequestration associated with planting new cropland.

But that research underestimated the emissions impact of land conversion, Lark said.

USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the nation's biofuel policy, is considering changes to the program. Under the RFS, Congress set blending requirements through 2022, but not beyond, giving the EPA authority to impose reforms. EPA plans to propose 2023 requirements in May.

(Reporting by Leah Douglas; Editing by David Gregorio)

.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/u-s-c ... d=msedgntp

Im not an expert in the composition of fuel but this sounds to me like a major issue that will perhaps lead to changes in legislation or even thinking on fuel. Seems like a good subject to start discussion on F1 fuel.

Is this something perhaps fact based or is it something generated by the fossil-fuel PR men to defray the green feeling and trends of petrol, gasoline call it what you will, being an evil fluid of destruction.

Is this an issue of ethanol itself, or maybe its more to do with the (perhaps not eco friendly) way ethanol is processed and mixed being the issue? Is it a side effect of the ethanol conversion and delivery process.(ie like F1 being transported by fossil fuel powered devices on its global journey being the major polluting factor ):dunno:

Do we have any fuel gurus or those with fuel knowledge in our midst? Someone who might be able to put some actual knowledge in?

[MonteCristo]

The feedstock used (corn or otherwise) would have an impact. Different crops have different energy levels, different input (fertilisers) requirements, etc. So not all ethanol fuels are the same.

[Picci]

I know nothing about fuel. I might need some education on this before I can actually comment

[Ian-S]

Anybody that has half a brain knows petrol mixed with ethanol is worse overall than petrol alone since it increases fuel consumption, the dumbarses making these decisions are the same lot who think reducing speed limits everywhere will reduce pollution too.

In the UK they quietly introduced E10 unleaded last September, everybody I know who has stuck it in their cars has seen a reduction in mpg, I put a fiver in, felt what it did and since then have decided to use E5 super plus, I know it’s more expensive but I get way more mpg than the E10 crap.

Formula One spends gazillions on exotic fuel and oils to find those extra tenths, why can’t they put some of that development into creating an environmentally friendly synthetic fuel, then instead of hanging all our hopes on a potentially unsustainable electric cars alternative, we at least have a fuel based alternative to fossil fuels that might not destroy the environment and might keep Greta happy? Gotta be worth looking into, right? Doing that would at least bring back the connection between Formula One and road cars, a connection sorely lost in recent years….

[Michkov]

In an ideal world you'd give them an energy limit and let them have it, free fuel and engine choice. This is made even more palatable with the budget cap in place than before. Realistically just paint the gas cans green and paint a tree on it to placate the tree huggers by buying carbon credits to make it look good instead of actually acting as a research lab.

[Ian-S]

Carbon credits, another nice distraction from the hypocrisy of it all lol. Last time I looked Formula E bought loads of them to offset the generators or grid power they used to charge the batteries in the cars so they could claim they were “carbon neutral”.

There should be a law that if you want to claim to be carbon neutral then you can’t use carbon credits to achieve it.

[MonteCristo]

Carbon credits, another nice distraction from the hypocrisy of it all lol. Last time I looked Formula E bought loads of them to offset the generators or grid power they used to charge the batteries in the cars so they could claim they were “carbon neutral”.

There should be a law that if you want to claim to be carbon neutral then you can’t use carbon credits to achieve it.

I see it as a bit of a transition device, and far better than nothing (assuming said offset schemes are legit, and not just planting some seedlings, letting them die in a drought and calling it a success).

But that said, it's pretty much the equivalent of causing an oil slick and then saying "But hey, look, I scrubbed the pelicans clean! We're good, right?"

[DoubleFart]

I disagree, because the purchase of Carbon Credits themselves fund more green power building.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I disagree, because the purchase of Carbon Credits themselves fund more green power building.

The reality is they are funding operations of their wind/solar farms, which includes repairs and maintenance to existing equipment such as solar panels, wind turbines and infrastructure. Plus wages and taxes. (or as they say wages, providing employment to local communities and expenses) . That is from a carbon credits project company official website.

Which to me implies it is less about further facility building, but more about the funding of existing operations (admittedly of generating green power.) Clearly the carbon credits are not all going to new projects. That seems to come more from government sources and grants. ie taxpayers money

[DoubleFart]

I disagree, because the purchase of Carbon Credits themselves fund more green power building.

The reality is they are funding operations of their wind/solar farms, which includes repairs and maintenance to existing equipment such as solar panels, wind turbines and infrastructure. Plus wages and taxes. (or as they say wages, providing employment to local communities and expenses) . That is from a carbon credits project company official website.

Which to me implies it is less about further facility building, but more about the funding of existing operations (admittedly of generating green power.) Clearly the carbon credits are not all going to new projects. That seems to come more from government sources and grants. ie taxpayers money

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it all does. It's a business and profits have to be made. Now is the best time to fund though as we get closer to a carbon tax in the 2030s.

Swap wind turbine for house.

[Ian-S]

Why not just be truthful about the emissions though? People would take whichever industry is making the claim more seriously if they said “our product reduced emissions by 70%” (random figure) than one that says “look at us we are zero emissions” while hiding fossil fuel generators out back to power the equipment.

[DoubleFart]

Why not just be truthful about the emissions though? People would take whichever industry is making the claim more seriously if they said “our product reduced emissions by 70%” (random figure) than one that says “look at us we are zero emissions” while hiding fossil fuel generators out back to power the equipment.

Because nobody questions it and holds F1 to account.

[Everso Biggyballies]

Why F1 has held back on "unfair" early sustainable fuel switch

F 1 has nailed its flag to the mast in mapping out a long-term future revolving around hybrid engines running on fully sustainable fuels. F1 seems very excited about it.

But they are not doing much about it until 2026 when the new engines come in.

Sebastian Vettel, who has been outspoken on environmental matters, said last year in a lengthy interview that he wished grand prix racing was moving quicker in making the move to sustainable fuels.

"We have an engine in place next year [for 2022] and we're going to have a content of only 10% of e-fuels in the car - which from a technology point of view is not a revolution," he said.

"You can already buy that fuel in the pump for several years as a customer around the world. So it's not a novelty.

"I don't think it matches the sort of ambitions that Formula 1 has to be a technological leader. So we react, rather than being proactive and lead the way."

He went on to explain that waiting until 2026 to introduce sustainable fuels meant "another five years of no progress.

"I think that will put our sport under huge pressure, because I feel in those five years there will be a lot of change hopefully applied around the world, and putting things under pressure that haven't applied any change."

He has a point..... other FIA categories such as WRC and WTCR who have already made the switch to sustainable fuel. F2 and F3 are set to change next year. Yet F1 wont move until 2026.

Why? The answer is simple and obvious. The Teams.The reason is not because F1 doesn't see the significance of the change, but is instead based on reasons of fairness among the teams / engine suppliers.

The F1 line is that different manufacturers have spent hundreds of millions on their current engines to work perfectly in sync with their oil and petrol suppliers, throwing a spanner in the works now with an all-new fuel, risked unfairly shaking things up.

It would have been almost inevitable that an instant switch to sustainable fuel would affect different engines in different ways in an unpredictable manner, leaving some winners and losers.F1 is clear that it wants to give all the current teams and engine manufacturers the same opportunity to make the most of the new fuel, which is why waiting for 2026 when the new engine regulations come into force makes much more sense.

Ross Brawn says "I think when you introduce a fuel, you're never quite sure the impact it will have on different engines.

"This is why we're holding back in F1, to say to teams and OEMS that when we introduce the new engines for 2026, it will be on sustainable fuel.

"It means there's no gain or loss for a driver in terms of competitiveness compared to the engines we have today. It would be unfair to introduce a sustainable fuel [right now] because the characteristics are a bit different, and F1 is always at an extreme of technology.

"You may find on a sustainable fuel that somebody has less potential than others. But with the new engines, they're all starting from the same baseline with much less concern about that aspect."

Brawn accepts that the technology around sustainable fuels, especially ones created synthetically, is fast-moving and what appears cutting-edge today may not be the case in a few years' time.

That is why he thinks it essential that F1 and the FIA be flexible in their approach to ensuring that what comes for 2026 works for manufacturers and delivers in the aims of pushing knowledge forward.

He sees huge value in getting a head start with F2 and F3 in understanding the impact of sustainable fuels in top-level single-seaters.

"The fuel regulations have been developed and the fuel regulations will have to reflect the technologies that are evolving quite quickly over the next few years," he said.

"I think with Aramco, working with ourselves, working with the FIA, that will be a laboratory to make sure the regulations are fair. If there are any challenges or any differences from where we started, or they start to evolve, then the regulations can recognise that.

"Until you start using these fuels in a racing environment, that's not going to happen. So it's a perfect testing ground for evaluating these fuels and making sure we've got the regulations correct for when we go full speed in F1."

Brawn is also mindful that, in an environment as ultra-competitive as F1, that rival oil companies don't try to wreck the good intentions of the sport by pursuing trick ideas that serve only their own sporting interests.[

"I think where Aramco benefits us is that they give us a real proper knowledge," added Brawn.

"So when we get someone come along with a complex solution which they claim is the only way it can be done, we know if that is true or not.

"F1 [teams] will always be looking for a competitive edge, and the FIA will need to make sure that that is contained and any technologies which evolve are fair and available to all participants.

"We are particularly sensitive to make sure that there's not some unique technology which is only available to one oil company, because that will not encourage all the oil companies to put the effort and resources into it that we want."

One thing Brawn is absolutely clear on is that the benefits of F1's sustainable fuel push will be far-reaching, and that's exactly why new car manufacturers like Audi have jumped on board.

"We believe that this is one of the solutions to the environmental challenge," he said.

"We've mentioned this several times, but there are two billion ICEs on the road. They're not going to disappear.

"But if we can have a plug-in fuel, which is carbon neutral, and we can start to distribute that fuel throughout the world, then we have a solution to the existing engines, and also quite frankly a solution for places where the infrastructure for electric cars just doesn't exist and won't be built for a few years.

"We're championing an alternative technology. And I think the OEMs see the value of it and that is why they are doing F1."

.https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... /10373334/

That is why F1 is lagging behind over so many other categories in sustainable fuels. They can be the guinea pigs I guess.


As an aside I see that Mercedes used Sustainable fuels in their trucks for the recent triple header in Europe. I
It helped net an 89 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. They elected to experiment with running 16 of its F1 race trucks on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO 100) biofuel for the three post-summer break races in Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy.

It wanted to use the three events, presumably covering several thousand Klms, to gather some good insight into the challenges and positive impacts of switching from regular diesel. Analysis of the running showed that the use of the HVO 100 biofuel saved a total of 44,091kg of CO2 being released, which is a reduction in emissions of 89 percent.

They are hoping that the lessons learned, especially around supply issues on mainland Europe, can help it move towards using sustainable fuels as much as possible in 2023.

Sustainable is clearly to new catch word in the world of things Eco at the moment. F1 will get there one day.

[DoubleFart]

Yay, more unsustainable at scale solutions.