We asked readers of The Engineer for their thoughts on Formula One’s pledge to reduce its net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2030.
Formula One has committed to making the entire sport carbon neutral by 2030 through increasing the efficiency of its racing engines and making further improvements to the energy efficiency of its factories and offices. It will also offset the carbon dioxide emissions generated by moving cars and equipment around the world to races by planting trees, working on technology to capture carbon dioxide from the air, producing better synthetic fuels from captured carbon dioxide and agricultural waste. But is the move a cynical attempt at greenwash or a genuine attempt to lead the way and set an example for its petrol head supporters around the world?
_______________________________________________________________________
Further reading
- Winning formula: Inside the Mercedes PU106A power unit
- Infiniti and Renault Formula One Team launch 2016 Engineering Academy
_______________________________________________________________________
More than half of respondents (56%) felt the move set a significant example, indicating a largely positive response from The Engineer’s readership. Only one in five (21%) took the more critical view that, given the bigger picture of global emissions, the amounts of CO2 emitted by F1 are insignificant. Just seven per cent felt the move would only be worthwhile if other motorsport series followed suit, while four per cent believed that any benefits would be limited to the automotive sector. More than one in ten readers (12%) chose the ‘none of the above’ option.
“It would be better in my view to reduce the number races and different venues (by half) – F1 has been profligate ever since Bernie Ecclestone reinvented the sport in the ‘70’s,” wrote Bruce Renfrew. “Two-thirds of the emissions are due to the logistics and personnel travel (45 per cent was contributed by logistics, including road, air and sea freight; 27.7 per cent came from personnel travel)…These days there are fewer benefits to the commercial auto industry derived from motorsport in general, but F1 in particular.”
“A bit of greenwash, methinks!” said Another Steve. “However, if it spurs the petrol heads into thinking a bit more about the environment then it could have positive consequences. I would like to see the motor industry, in general, spending a lot more time and money on engine efficiency rather than speed and power – give me an engine that can do more than 100 miles per gallon !!”
The debate will remain open in the comments below, but we remind all readers to familiarise themselves with our guidelines for the content of comments before submitting, and to note that all comments are moderated for length, grammar and sense before publication.
Firstly, I have severe doubts that any “carbon neutral” maths is fair. You would have to plant trees on land not otherwise designated for forest, and retain that as forest ongoing (allowing any harvesting to be replaced and not counted for any other purpose). How many square km are we talking? Where exactly are we talking? (The near neighbours of the river Don might appreciate more trees in the Pennines!)
Biofuel does not convince me – most maths I have seen is for biofuel refineries powered by petroleum.
Secondly, Formula E shows the way. Although their races are processional and are currently well off the pace of F1, the principle of electrically powered racing is valid. It could lead to the whole circus of F1 being electrically powered and hence could be 100% renewable. Now that would be an achievement and something worth celebrating.
Two thirds of the emissions are due to the logistics and personnel travel (45 per cent was contributed by logistics, including road, air and sea freight; 27.7 per cent came from personnel travel) It would be better in my view to reduce the number races and different venues (by half) – F1 has been profligate ever since Bernie Ecclestone reinvented the sport in the ‘70’s Theses days there are fewer benefits to the commercial auto industry derived from motorsport in general, but F1 in particular.
A bit of greenwash, methinks ! However, if it spurs the petrol heads into thinking a bit more about the environment then it could have positive consequences. I would like to see the motor industry, in general, spending a lot more time and money on engine efficiency rather than speed and power – give me an engine that can do more than 100 miles per gallon !!
WRT offsetting the carbon dioxide emissions by planting trees, I believe the people who propose this nonsense have lost the plot, just like governments who buy and sell their pollution ‘quotas’. The whole point is we need to be reducing pollution not spewing out the filth and then pretending we’re offsetting it so it doesn’t matter.
Formua E still has virtually the same CO2 impact as F1 in that most of the CO2 production is in the logistics of moving from one race to the next, which is the same with Formula E
I voted “the example it sets is significant” and at least it is an (important) industry that recognises its issues despite its infinitesimal contribution to global warming. Much of the “green” intents listed above make complete sense, but increased use of biofuel not so. If the world went down this route, there would be yet more intensive farming of crops with either less space for our own food needs, or, worse still, making space for more fields by burning more forests, much like the palm oil disaster. BTW, I wonder how many tons (or tonnes) of CO2 are being released in forest fires in California, Australia, Ukraine, Amazon right now?
Not entirely sure how it can be achieved! Unless they ignore some aspects of their operations. I imagine that by far the most CO2 they produce comes from the cast logistics train involved in transporting themselves around the world and during their manufacturing processes.
Hydrogen is better than synthetic and bio-fuels with only a low level of NOx pollution,a year ago Nov 2018 ULEMCo demonstrated the Mega Low Emissions truck that burns hydrogen in a diesel engine with 45% efficiency.Fuel cells and batteries from Formula E are more efficient but there isn’t the roar of an engine.Hydrogen gas is slightly safer than petrol,if there is a leak the gas floats upwards instead of forming a flammable pool on the track.If F1 teams use hydrogen that could lead to innovations that can be applied to hydrogen trucks,buses,trains,ferries,planes ect.You can see a ULEMCo converted dual fuel hydrogen and diesel bin lorry (garbage truck) in The Fully Charged show episode Alternative Fuel Trucks and Vans May 20,2019 on youtube.
Like with global politicians: just window dressing