France calls for the end of the internal combustion engine!

This is OK, but from what I read, synthetic fuels won't come cheap and therefore not be an alternative solution for fossil fuels.
They may be afordable in motor sports or high end motorcars, but not for the average road car user.

 

They actually won't be available at all, as in zero availability, will be dedicated to motorsport, and anything that remains will be mixed with standard gasoline. There simply will not be the "refining" capacity or transport/delivery ability. You might be able to buy it in 55 gallon drums and have it delivered, but that's about all I expect to come of it, ever.

And, "fossil fuels", though a popular misconception/fairy tale, are actually "natural earth fuels", look no further than Saturn's moon Titan's lakes of hydrocarbons for the hard proof that petroleum (latin roots: rock/stone oil) is a naturally occurring and abiotic substance, only coal seams are fossilized in nature (plants ranging back some 300m years ago)

 

No other quote could be more appropriate to the F1-sub-group.

 

That's what I understand. The synthetic fuel Porsche is actually researching in his laboratory in Chile, would apparently costs 5 times more to produce than the present high grade racing gas from Sunoco.
But maybe a different process and more research will bring the cost down one day.
Let's live in hope !

 

It's maybe not very scientific, but the National Geographic Society defines fossil fuel as decomposing plants and animals found in the Earth crust that contain carbon and hydrogen, and which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels.
I think most people accept that definition.

 

I hear you, but, cost is not really the primary issue, production is, this current research project is not very scalable, especially when you consider the current volume of gasoline used per day in EU:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gasoline_consumption/European-union/

I think that's why there was a "compromise", because it is foolish, there will not be anywhere near sufficient production to make any difference, it will not matter.

But, what will matter, is EV raw material supply chains are already insufficient and will only become worse and then on the demand side, there is very little demand for EVs (especially absent gov't hand-outs/rebates) and then charging infrastructure, practically non-existent (outside of those who can charge overnight, which leaves 40% of the population 'in the dark').

There are so many unrealistic expectations with the EV push, it will collapse under its own weight, probably in next 4-5 years, all the 'targets' will necessarily be kicked down the street, to future decades...and then, still will not come to fruition...

 

Other than coal, completely wrong in terms of how petroleum and natural gas are actually formed, within the earth's crust, well below the layers where any such animals existed.

I'm sure NatGeo has the same explanation for the lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan (correction, they refer to mysterious subsurface gas explosions, hmm, just where did those gas form, oh yea, abiotically, naturally created just like on Earth, besides, ever check the atmosphere components of the Jovian/gas giants..hmm, yep, more gas, mostly hydrogen which does not exist uncombined on earth and all have a low percentage of methane, hmm), from NASA's simple surveys, vastly exceeds all known terrestial production/reserves...NatGeo stopped being anything approaching scientific decades ago...

 

OK, I don't see myself sufficently scientifically educated on the subject to conduct a conversation on the subject.

 

It is always curious when these various scientific journals start injecting mysterious 'hand of God' transactions to why something happened, that is, no scientific argument. Such as "comets" being the source of this or that, without solid evidence of how did it form in a comet (i.e. conjectures about the various hydrocarbons confirmed on Titan, and Mars, etc).

for example, search on 'comet' in the following:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-on-mars-titan/

I think a good response here would be there: the shear volume of things we know nothing about vastly exceeds what we think we know about.

 

If you have some time, this will provide a number of insights...

1993:Thomas Gold:
The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Origin-of-oil/The%20Origin%20of%20Methane%20(and%20Oil)%20in%20the%20Crust%20of%20the%20Earth.pdf

And, remember, all the 'net-zero carbon' dictates are entirely political without any regard for reality, of which, no effect will be noted (on nature itself), however, the idea is not that of all...

 

How did a 6 year old thread come back to life and why was it in F1 in the first place?
Doesn't this belong in P&R?

 

Page 4 post #94.