BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 37 comments are related to an article called:

Zero CO2 Emission F1 Cars in 2012

Page 1 of 2

posted Nov 17, 2010

Silly idea because the carbon footprint of all the trucks and planes etc needed to transport the GP roadshow around the world. Unless of course you want 19 different GPs to be held on the same circuit every time. Just cutting the race cars CO2 emissions will only cut less than 1% of the total involved in F1.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

Already been done I'm afraid.

http://www.pedalcars.info/

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

comment by DistantGreen (U13096956)

Already been done I'm afraid.
http://www.pedalcars.info/
--------------------------------
<laugh> <laugh> <laugh>

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

F1 is effectively CO2-free and has been since the late 90's, because Bernie's been planting trees (well, paying someone else) to offset the carbon usage.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

I can't imagine that Formula one produces more CO2 then lets say the tour de France. In the tour the France the bikers are precedes and followed by a publicity that lasts for hours and hours.

Would be nice though if F1 played the environment factor. On the other hand environment and a macho sport don't go very well together from a commercial point of view.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

Petrol free is not CO2 free. In fact many alternative fuel methods actually create more CO2 at source.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

A Formula 1 team produces around 13,000 tons of carbon a year, however emissions generated directly from race cars remain a fraction of the total CO2 output, at about 0.46%.

However, the carbon footprint for the 2010 World Cup was:
2.8 million tonnes CO2e

To put this figure in perspective, 2.8m tonnes is roughly equivalent to 6,000 space shuttle fights

An average UK football match produces 850 tonnes.
So for a standard season, each UK team produces about 32,500 tonnes of carbon, nearly three times as much as an F1 team, and there are many more football teams in the world than F1 teams.

Also F1 off-sets all the carbon from racing and travel, and also the travel by the spectators, football doesn't do anything.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

NOOOO! Keep petrol fueled F1 cars! How can an F1 fan say this?! What is this world coming to?!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

An engine can run on water.

An electric current passed through water seperates into oxygen and hydrogen. Feed the hydrogen into the engine, and the waste gas is oxygen.

Youtbe has many videos showing water fuelled cars running, and how to make water cells.



The reason the car industry has not made and developed water fuelled cars ever? Why not ask yourself that question.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

The environment will survive, lets have fun!!! Global warming is a myth, just like the ozone hole (what ever happend to it), Y2K etc

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

The environment will survive, lets have fun!!! Global warming is a myth, just like the ozone hole (what ever happend to it), Y2K etc
--------------
The hole is still there.

And trust me, as someone who works with Legacy IT equipment, Y2K was real (though the mass media hype was stupid) and cost the UK several Billions worth of lost production in manufacturing. It would have cost a whole heap more without the effort and money put in to fix 99% of the problems before they occured.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

An engine can run on water.

An electric current passed through water seperates into oxygen and hydrogen. Feed the hydrogen into the engine, and the waste gas is oxygen.

Youtbe has many videos showing water fuelled cars running, and how to make water cells.



The reason the car industry has not made and developed water fuelled cars ever? Why not ask yourself that question.
--------------------------------------------
You are not very intelligent, aren't you. Where will the said current come from. Do you have a idea of how much energy it takes to slip a water molecule.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

An engine can run on water.

An electric current passed through water seperates into oxygen and hydrogen. Feed the hydrogen into the engine, and the waste gas is oxygen.

Youtbe has many videos showing water fuelled cars running, and how to make water cells.

The reason the car industry has not made and developed water fuelled cars ever? Why not ask yourself that question.
----------
1. The need for massive fuel tanks filled with water to make even short journeys.

2. The electric current has to be generated in the first place.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

^The_STIG, in the time it took me to work out my password you beat me to it.

Water-based fuel cells aren't impossible, but they'll probably never be efficient enough, titanium catalysts etc are quite useful but most hydrogen cells (that I've encountered) use a different chemical system to make the H2, usually a pair of species separated by a catalytic 'sheet' that allows the reaction to occur, preventing unwanted build-up of hydrogen.

*shrugs*

I think Elena Selli with the University of Milan did some good work on hydrogen fuel cells, and I seriously reckon they'll be the 'moving' energy source of the future, alongside nuclear as the domestic source (on a side note, check out Traveling Wave Reactors, there's a good talk on ted.com by Bill Gates, fantastic technology, completely safe, doesn't use proliferable Uranium and we've got tonnes of the fuel source lying about (U238, the waste from normal Nuc. reactors).

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

And trust me, as someone who works with Legacy IT equipment, Y2K was real (though the mass media hype was stupid) and cost the UK several Billions worth of lost production in manufacturing. It would have cost a whole heap more without the effort and money put in to fix 99% of the problems before they occured.
------------------------------------------------
My point exactly, global warming, just like Y2K and the hole, has been blown over the top

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

My point exactly, global warming, just like Y2K and the hole, has been blown over the top
----------------------------------------------
the hole's still there, its just not getting bigger because were not using cfc's anymore, global warming is happening, wake up and smell the buring daisies
also what kind of f1 fan wants a non petrol f1 car?! that would ruin it....

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

global warming is happening, wake up and smell the buring daisies
--------------------------------
From where i am sitting, i haven't seen any evidence to support your notion. Its fear mongering from the scientist.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

The_STIG, the arguments you are making are somewhat like leaving the stable door wide open and claiming the horse is secure because it's still there at the moment. It's easier to close the door now than chase after a horse. People knew there was a possible problem with Y2K so they fixed it before it came into effect. People knew there was a problem with CFC's so they stopped using them before the doomsday scenarios were realised.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

i think i remember my science teacher saying that no machine is 100% efficient. if he is right, any fuel which has to be manufactured will not be efficient so fossil fuel is the most efficient and environmentally friendliest fuel there will ever be.deposits of fossil fuel is also being found on a monthly basis, as a result opec is rapidly expanding.
this only exposes all those who hide behind the fact that the earth and it's atmosphere is constantly evolving.
global warming is as fake as the millennium bug.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

manuelrc, do you have any evidence of this knowledge you claim to have existed about y2k?
did they go around the world to fix all pcs to resolve the problem?
science follows the laws if nature and because the world has always evolved, sexual reproduction is more successful than asexual reproduction.
evolution is not global warming and the earth is about 5 billion years old. the first plants appeared about 3.85 billion years ago and humans have only started using fossil fuel at current rates about 50 years ago. how is it possible for us to consume all of the fossil fuels formed over billions of years even if it takes millions of years for them to form? start understanding science and you will not be fooled by those who think they know more than everyone else.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

who can deny the pangea ever existed?
who can deny the atmosphere has always evolved?
so where does "global warming" fit in?
i would love the see evidence from anyone who believes in global warming.
i have looked and can't see any.
all i know is that 0.75% of the earth's surface is covered in water. i also know that the 0.75% of incident sunlight on earth causes water to evaporate, condense in the atmosphere, losing the heat to the atmosphere and falling as rain. i also know that the composition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.04% so how is it possible such s minute about of the atmosphere to cause so much temperature fluctuation in the atmosphere? I understand the characteristics of the double bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide.
global warming is simply a myth and claiming to work anywhere is no proof that y2k and global warming exist. please provide credible evidence if you may.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

enjoy petrol f1 and let it be. we are insignificant relative the the earth. 6.8 billion of 80kg masses compared to 600 000 000 000 000 000 000kg? we can never destroy the earth even if we set off all the nuclear bombs on earth at the same time.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

"manuelrc, do you have any evidence of this knowledge you claim to have existed about y2k? did they go around the world to fix all pcs to resolve the problem?"

There are plenty of examples of where the Y2K bug acutally happened. Lots of business' amended their systems but there were still cases of bank accounts, minor monitoring software at powerplants, airports etc and small scale systems failing. People were aware of the problem so not only did it reduce it happening but when problems occured it was the first place they looked for coding errors.

"how is it possible for us to consume all of the fossil fuels formed over billions of years even if it takes millions of years for them to form?"

You do realise the problem of global warming is not the consuming of all of the resources but the increased amount of CO2 produced by humans at the same times as rainforrests etc which convert CO2 into oxygen are being cut down.

"if he is right, any fuel which has to be manufactured will not be efficient so fossil fuel is the most efficient and environmentally friendliest fuel there will ever be."

Fossil fuels still have to be manufactured. Mining involves machines. Oil requires machines to drill and refine it into petrol etc. Then they have to be burned by machines to produce energy.

| complain about this comment

comment by Canis (U14507567)

posted Nov 17, 2010

OK, Firstly Y2K was not a myth, seeing as the majority of the problem was the date counter in most systems not being able to make it past the end of 1999 so they had to be updated. This was realised a long time in advance so by the time you got to 1999 most companies had already done the necessary work (though as pointed out a few cases slipped through the net).

As for Global Warming (or climate change as it is now referred to as it actually a cooling effect currently). Yes this is produced by CO2, yes man is currently producing more CO2 than ever before, but the amount we are producing is minimal compared to nature itself. I am still trying to find the link but I have read in a number of places that your average volcanic erruption produces more CO2 in 1 day than all of mankind in 10 years. So if we look at the erruption that took place in Iceland earlier this year where the erruption lasted for approx 30 days, that would give us 300 years of man made CO2 emissions. This is only one source of natural CO2 over which we have no control.

As for getting rid of petrol in F1, I would love to see the engine regs changed to allow for teams to explore alternative fuels. Lets face it until a "sport" like F1 starts to invest in alternative energy methods then road cars are not going to advance very quickly. Already some manufacturers can get more torque and better acceleration out of a deisel engine than they do out of the same sized petrol model, with have the fuel consumption and less emissions. This was brought about by investment in motorsport (See VW group, Audi deisels and their performance in Le Mans). I think the engine regs should be a set capacity and set max BHP, from there the suppliers should be free to experiment and build what they like...

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2010

fossil fuel is collected and separated, it is not manufactures. if fossil fuel is manufactured in your town, can you tell us what the ingredients are?
you have not been able to provide any evidence of "global warming" being true mor have you provided any evidence to claim that fossil fuel is running out. nor have you been able to provide any evidence that the combustion of hydrogen can provide considerably more energy than the energy used in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. if you are not sure, I suggest you study the bond breaking and bonding formation enthalpy changes for the bond.
researchers all over the world are finding new ways to attract funding and the hydrogen fuel cell hype is a good example.

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 2

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead