Sustainable Fuels

[Orphia Nay]

Formula 1 racing moves to fully 50/50% hybrid V6 engines in 2026, but the longer term plan is to move to V8 or even V10 cars running on sustainable fuels.

The FIA President thinks sustainable fuel V8s should be possible in 2029.

V8 engines to return? FIA president reveals possible timeline in ‘right way forward’ update

Mohammed Ben Sulayem has said the V8 engine proposal is "the right way" to go for Formula 1, as he offered a possible introduction date.

www.planetf1.com

“It’s about reaching the [Net Zero] numbers when it comes to the environment. If we can reach it this way or that way, who cares?"


Airlines, too, are working on sustainable fuels.

https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/sustainability/our-planet/sustainable-aviation-fuel/saf-coalition-program.html

As F1 technology, like aviation, is a precursor to road vehicle technology, are we more on track to Net Zero 2050 for transport this way?

Is sustainable fuel feasible? What issues do you see with this? Care to share what you know of the science behind sustainable fuel?

 

[sinnikal]

It depends on the definition of 'sustainable'. We know that oil and gas aren't sustainable because the planet only has a limited amount available. If by 'sustainable' it is meant that it able to be renewed, eg, plant oil, that doesn't help. It still produces CO2 which will add to global heating.
It needs to mean a fuel such that the planet is able to continue to sustain human life.

 

[jeremyp]

It depends on the definition of 'sustainable'. We know that oil and gas aren't sustainable because the planet only has a limited amount available. If by 'sustainable' it is meant that it able to be renewed, eg, plant oil, that doesn't help. It still produces CO2 which will add to global heating.
It needs to mean a fuel such that the planet is able to continue to sustain human life.

The carbon in oil from plants comes from the plants which, by and large, get it from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

[sinnikal]

As a species we really need to be moving away from burning carbon, whatever its source. Arable land can be better used, for example growing food. We have plenty of other sources of energy available - just not the political will to do it.
It'll be the death of us.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yeah but as jeremyp said, plants take carbon from the air and that's all part of the carbon cycle, except of course if you look at the whole business where there's also fertilisers and insecticides and tractors and transportation and processing, all of which can use fossil fuels.

So, yes, there's no problem in principle with using a plant-based fuel, but it still requires a sustainable way to grow and process the plants into fuel.

 

[zooterkin]

Yeah but as jeremyp said, plants take carbon from the air and that's all part of the carbon cycle, except of course if you look at the whole business where there's also fertilisers and insecticides and tractors and transportation and processing, all of which can use fossil fuels.

So, yes, there's no problem in principle with using a plant-based fuel, but it still requires a sustainable way to grow and process the plants into fuel.

Exactly. We need to increase our capacity for generating electricity from carbon-neutral sources (solar, wind, wave, nuclear, etc), but some things, such as aviation, as Orphia Nay mentions in the OP, are not yet doable with electricity and need the energy density of petrochemical fuels. There seem to be a number of possible options for renewable fuels, but I'm not sure which ones will be viable.

I used to be against aircon, in principle, since burning fossil fuel just makes things worse, but now we have the prospect of mostly renewable-generated electricity, I am less worried about it.

 

[jeremyp]

As a species we really need to be moving away from burning carbon, whatever its source. Arable land can be better used, for example growing food.

Whilst it is a good general principle, some applications have no realistic alternative to but to use carbon based fuels. Things like aircraft, ships and agricultural machinery will almost certainly use ICE for the foreseeable future.

Then there's the problem that almost all the car in the world are ICE and if you want us all to go electric, those cars become useless. Making new cars of any description is incredibly energy intensive and environmentally damaging.

We have plenty of other sources of energy available - just not the political will to do it.
It'll be the death of us.

It would be better for the other species on Earth - except maybe human lice - if we were all dead. Nobody has yet made a good case for the survival of the human species.

 

[dirtywick]

Then there's the problem that almost all the car in the world are ICE and if you want us all to go electric, those cars become useless. Making new cars of any description is incredibly energy intensive and environmentally damaging.

biggest cost of delaying action imo. and it’ll continue to compound

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Then there's the problem that almost all the car in the world are ICE and if you want us all to go electric, those cars become useless.

In less than two decades the vast majority of those cars will already have been scrapped. I think a bigger problem will be the upheaval in the huge support infrastructure that allows those millions of cars to be convenient daily transport. Most of us don't have to think about where to find our next fillup, but that will change as sales halve and halve again and fuel stations close. Meanwhile the charging infrastructure and the power it demands will have to grow very fast and there are bound to be dead end solutions along the way.

 

[Armitage72]

As a species we really need to be moving away from burning carbon, whatever its source.
Arable land can be better used, for example growing food. We have plenty of other sources of energy available - just not the political will to do it.
It'll be the death of us.

There's fuel production from algae, which doesn't use land. It can also use water that isn't useful for drinking or agriculture, like salt aquifers, seawater, and wastewater.

Algae fuel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Olmstead]

It would be better for the other species on Earth - except maybe human lice - if we were all dead. Nobody has yet made a good case for the survival of the human species.

To be fair, nobody has yet made a good case for the survival of any species.

 

[acbytesla]

Whilst it is a good general principle, some applications have no realistic alternative to but to use carbon based fuels. Things like aircraft, ships and agricultural machinery will almost certainly use ICE for the foreseeable future.

Then there's the problem that almost all the car in the world are ICE and if you want us all to go electric, those cars become useless. Making new cars of any description is incredibly energy intensive and environmentally damaging.

Nonsense.

You're going to replace your car with another car at some point. On average, new car buyers own that vehicle for 8.4 years. Manufacturing of both ICE and EVs are both energy intensive. Average lifespan of a car before it shows up in a wrecking yard is 12 to 15 years or 200,000 miles.

And the fact is that electric motors are far more durable than internal combustion engines. There's a lot more to a car than the engine slash motor. So there is more to it than this. The battery's lifespan is the biggest EV concern. And this has been holding them back in replacing ICE vehicles. But every year it is less so. Right now, EVs make up 20% of new car sales. I bet that number will reach 40% by 2032. Trump's policies will slow adoption in the US but will have little effect elsewhere.

And the oil companies are crapping their pants because of this.

 

[Brainster]

Biofuels sound great but can the quantities needed be delivered? Quantas has been boasting about moving over to biofuels since 2022. Currently an estimated 0.2% of their fuel needs is provided by bio. That means 1 gallon of bio for every 499 gallons of kerosene (jet fuel is highly refined kerosene). The good news is that's mostly an issue with airplanes; we will not be switching cars over to bio, as the replacement is clearly EVs.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Exactly. We need to increase our capacity for generating electricity from carbon-neutral sources (solar, wind, wave, nuclear, etc), but some things, such as aviation, as Orphia Nay mentions in the OP, are not yet doable with electricity and need the energy density of petrochemical fuels. There seem to be a number of possible options for renewable fuels, but I'm not sure which ones will be viable.

Not that long ago we didn't have aviation, and ships used wind power.

I grew up in the 60's. My lifestyle back then wasn't much different from today. Airline travel was out of reach for 'poor' people like us, so we just didn't do it and were happy. But the cost of airline travel has dramatically reduced since then so far more people do it. According to this article, a cross-country flight between Los Angeles and Boston cost $4,439 in 1941, $915.82 in 1978, $408.89 in 2015, and a mere $119.67 in 2024 (all in 2024 dollars).

If we went back to 2015 pricing (a mere decade ago) airline GHG emissions wouldn't be so much of a problem because fewer people would fly. If we went back to 1960's prices it would be a nonissue - because very few people would fly. In reality the opposite is happening - activity is expected to increase 39% by 2035. Why? because it's too cheap. If airlines had to buy 'renewable' fuels the cost would go up dramatically. Demand would plummet. Many operators could go bankrupt. But it wouldn't change the average person's lifestyle much if at all.

On the shipping front, 40% of international cargo shipping is used for transporting fossil fuels. If we weren't consuming those fossil fuels we wouldn't need that shipping! As for the rest, solar and wind can do a lot of it. Here again prices might go up - but we already have countries slapping on 100% tariffs to protect local industries, equivalent to raising shipping costs by 10 to 100 times. Imported goods would just cost a bit more and take longer to arrive - like they did in the 60's.

The problem isn't that some things will still need fossil fuels, it's how much is needed. Steam engines use enormous amounts of coal and are extremely dirty. Yet nobody is getting upset about steam trains causing global warming etc. - because very few are running. We need the same to apply to other fossil-fueled engines. If done right this would not create any great hardship. Most of us would barely notice the difference.

 

[acbytesla]

Biofuels sound great but can the quantities needed be delivered? Quantas has been boasting about moving over to biofuels since 2022. Currently an estimated 0.2% of their fuel needs is provided by bio. That means 1 gallon of bio for every 499 gallons of kerosene (jet fuel is highly refined kerosene). The good news is that's mostly an issue with airplanes; we will not be switching cars over to bio, as the replacement is clearly EVs.

I think it's challenging growing biofuels. Ethanol subsidies has been a mistake and probably have little effect in reducing CO2 if any. I have yet to see a viable alternative to fossil fuels for aviation hydrogen and amonia are generally made out of fossil fuels. So what's the point?

For the foreseeable future, there isn't something that will make a dent as a reasonable fossil fuel alternative for aviation. I see electric planes if battery storage can increase energy density to say triple what it is now. 900 to 1,000 watt hours per kg is what it will take for regional routes.
There are certain chemistries that are promising but all are in their infancy.

I fully expect EVs to saturate the personal transportation market over the next 15 years. But we're a long way off on planes.

 

[acbytesla]

Not that long ago we didn't have aviation, and ships used wind power.

I grew up in the 60's. My lifestyle back then wasn't much different from today. Airline travel was out of reach for 'poor' people like us, so we just didn't do it and were happy. But the cost of airline travel has dramatically reduced since then so far more people do it. According to this article, a cross-country flight between Los Angeles and Boston cost $4,439 in 1941, $915.82 in 1978, $408.89 in 2015, and a mere $119.67 in 2024 (all in 2024 dollars).

If we went back to 2015 pricing (a mere decade ago) airline GHG emissions wouldn't be so much of a problem because fewer people would fly. If we went back to 1960's prices it would be a nonissue - because very few people would fly. In reality the opposite is happening - activity is expected to increase 39% by 2035. Why? because it's too cheap. If airlines had to buy 'renewable' fuels the cost would go up dramatically. Demand would plummet. Many operators could go bankrupt. But it wouldn't change the average person's lifestyle much if at all.

On the shipping front, 40% of international cargo shipping is used for transporting fossil fuels. If we weren't consuming those fossil fuels we wouldn't need that shipping! As for the rest, solar and wind can do a lot of it. Here again prices might go up - but we already have countries slapping on 100% tariffs to protect local industries, equivalent to raising shipping costs by 10 to 100 times. Imported goods would just cost a bit more and take longer to arrive - like they did in the 60's.

The problem isn't that some things will still need fossil fuels, it's how much is needed. Steam engines use enormous amounts of coal and are extremely dirty. Yet nobody is getting upset about steam trains causing global warming etc. - because very few are running. We need the same to apply to other fossil-fueled engines. If done right this would not create any great hardship. Most of us would barely notice the difference.

You and I pretty much agree on this one. People will only sacrifice so much. I disagree with environmentalists who seem to push sacrifice. The ONLY way to solve this problem is through science and engineering. But I don't think you can expect businesses to gamble enough to address this.

 

[8enotto]

The growth of the EV into top position will in the short run put a huge demand on mining operations. The same places that use the positively worst fuel economy vehicles known to man.

That's an early tradeoff to the greater good. There will be many more along the way that don't make the climate movement very happy.
The good short term band aid is convert existing cars to electric (discussed in depth already) to avoid scrapping a portion of them.
Eventually all will rust out or become too worn to be useful anyway but it delays the massive hit one might expect.

The current gen of heavy equipment that is all electric isn't the bigger things. It's mostly small to medium and not as capable as diesel yet. Agricultural equipment has that same limit right now.

Baby steps. Replace what breaks with the new technology, including the early gen electric stuff that didn't work as planned.

In my microcosm of society we have a 13 year old gas car, multiple lawnmowers and two stroke yard tools at our disposal.
The reason is that is what we can afford to do what we need to do. It costs 1/3 of what I really want.

We have made the transition to corded and battery powered trimmers, hedge trimmers and two chainsaws.
The chainsaws still require petroleum based bar and chain lube, the recharge and 120ac for others is just displacing the pollution to where it's generated. Using landfill methane and LP gas.
Not really much more than feel good progress. For now.

Being realistic sucks. I really want a small all electric car, off grid solar on the house to charge it. It would also be great to go to all battery powered lawn equipment. Good stuff all on one battery platform and really good run times on the batteries.
I can't afford the current stuff. But I can work towards it.
Pipe dreams at the moment. Meanwhile need to go buy gas in the morning to be able to take a job.

 

[acbytesla]

The growth of the EV into top position will in the short run put a huge demand on mining operations. The same places that use the positively worst fuel economy vehicles known to man.

That's an early tradeoff to the greater good. There will be many more along the way that don't make the climate movement very happy.
The good short term band aid is convert existing cars to electric (discussed in depth already) to avoid scrapping a portion of them.
Eventually all will rust out or become too worn to be useful anyway but it delays the massive hit one might expect.

The current gen of heavy equipment that is all electric isn't the bigger things. It's mostly small to medium and not as capable as diesel yet. Agricultural equipment has that same limit right now.

Baby steps. Replace what breaks with the new technology, including the early gen electric stuff that didn't work as planned.

In my microcosm of society we have a 13 year old gas car, multiple lawnmowers and two stroke yard tools at our disposal.
The reason is that is what we can afford to do what we need to do. It costs 1/3 of what I really want.

We have made the transition to corded and battery powered trimmers, hedge trimmers and two chainsaws.
The chainsaws still require petroleum based bar and chain lube, the recharge and 120ac for others is just displacing the pollution to where it's generated. Using landfill methane and LP gas.
Not really much more than feel good progress. For now.

Being realistic sucks. I really want a small all electric car, off grid solar on the house to charge it. It would also be great to go to all battery powered lawn equipment. Good stuff all on one battery platform and really good run times on the batteries.
I can't afford the current stuff. But I can work towards it.
Pipe dreams at the moment. Meanwhile need to go buy gas in the morning to be able to take a job.

People do what they have to so they can get by. I drive my cars till the wheels fall off. When that time comes or close to it, I'll get a new used car.
I have not once in my life owned a new car. Always too expensive. I'm hoping my next vehicle will be an EV.

 

[novaphile]

People do what they have to so they can get by. I drive my cars till the wheels fall off. When that time comes or close to it, I'll get a new used car.
I have not once in my life owned a new car. Always too expensive. I'm hoping my next vehicle will be an EV.

I've been recently reading about people getting second hand EVs at bargain prices, so your chances are good.

I bought mine after it had been leased to someone for 12 months, and that knocked around $20k off the price, so I'm still happy about that.

(Paid $38k on road, for a vehicle that cost over $60k new).

(All figures are Australian dollars.)

 

[acbytesla]

I've been recently reading about people getting second hand EVs at bargain prices, so your chances are good.

I bought mine after it had been leased to someone for 12 months, and that knocked around $20k off the price, so I'm still happy about that.

(Paid $38k on road, for a vehicle that cost over $60k new).

(All figures are Australian dollars.)

Whatever it is, it will have to be under $20K USD for me. Probably under $15K because when I go electric I'll be spending another $10 to $15K+ on more solar and associated components.