Synthetic fuels are a “Plan B” solution for sustainability – Agag

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Formula E chairman Alejandro Agag believes the synthetic fuels being introduced in some motorsport series including Formula 1 are only a “plan B” solution for sustainability

In brief

Synthetic fuel is “plan B” for sustainable charging in Formula E

Agag says he prefers alternative sustainable fuel sources to the synthetic fuels being developed for F1. Formula E charges its electric cars using generators which were previously run on algae glucose (provided by former partner Aquafuel) and latterly vegetable oil. However Agag sees a future for charging via sustainably-generated hydrogen rather than the synthetic fuels F1 plans to introduce in 2026.

“If you have a lot of electric cars on the roads but we are producing the electricity with coal or with oil, you’re only fixing half of the problem, you’re fixing the downstream but you’re not fixing the upstream,” explained Agag during a press conference ahead of Maserati’s announcement to join Formula E. “And this is a problem that needs to be fixed on both sides, on the upstream and downstream. If you look at specifically Formula E, we have had in the past – and it’s a very fair point – we were producing the electricity from generators, which then we are not providing a full solution, we’re only providing half of the solution.

“Of course, we have now taken steps to change that and we are looking into different options,” Agag continued. “Obviously, one option that is very much in fashion today is what they call synthetic fuel. Synthetic fuel is more a plan B than plan A. Plan A is going purely renewable energy and synthetic fuels are kind of a midway solution that can be better, obviously, than diesel or than gasoline, but is not the ideal solution.”

Agag said that for him, hydrogen was a “very interesting” alternative. “This is the solution that we’re using in the sister championship of Formula E, Extreme E, in which we produce the hydrogen from solar energy and we use that hydrogen in a fuel cell that then helps to power the race cars. So Formula E is working on all these solutions to improve the charging of the cars and to make the whole circle complete.”

Quotes: Hazel Southwell

Defranceso’s IndyCar livery revealed

Devlin Defrancesco's livery, IndyCar, Andretti, 2022
Devlin Defrancesco’s livery, IndyCar, Andretti, 2022

Andretti has revealed the livery rookie driver Devlin Defrancesco will use when he makes his debut this season.

Mercedes junior Aron to race Formula Regional Asian Championship

Mercedes junior driver Paul Aron will compete in this year’s Formula Regional Asian Championship with Prema.

The 17-year-old Estonian will race again for the team with which he competed in last year’s Formula Regional European Championship, finishing third in the standings with two race victories.

Aron joined the Mercedes junior programme in 2019 aged just 15 after winning the European Junior Kart Championship.

The Formula Regional Asian Championship starts in Abu Dhabi on January 21.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

After the FIA confirmed that the findings of their investigation into the final laps of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix will be presented to the F1 Commission in February, @neilosjames has a theory to explain the wait…

Maybe they couldn’t get the Netflix team over before then to film it happening.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Nick, Koolkieren and Alexandre Araujo!

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

58 comments on “Synthetic fuels are a “Plan B” solution for sustainability – Agag”

  1. Wow, Damon Hill woke up and chose violence with that tweet didn’t he?

    If ferrari have a competitive car next year it could be argued that they have the strongest line up

    It’ll be interesting to see how Rossi gets on as well on 4 wheels.

    1. @djarvis *cough Hamilton and Russell *cough

      1. Russell will have almost a new car underneath him as Sainz and Leclerc have at least a year of experience at Ferrari

      2. @peartree

        Russel is an unknown quantity against Lewis in that Mercedes currently. Beating an ageing Kubica and Nicholas Latifi is completely different to going against Lewis Hamilton in a team Lewis has driven with for not shy of a decade. Based on last season, it would have to be said that Sainz and Leclerc are the strongest pairing

        1. Gavin Campbell
          14th January 2022, 14:03

          Yep but thats the point of tuning in surely?

          Also I prefer the term demolished not beat Kubica and Latifi – he also hopped in the car and did pretty well against Bottas for a weekend with not much prep (and not fitting in the car)

  2. Who asked Damon Hill for his opinion on “Hamilton fans”, though?`

    1. I’m not going to get into that Damon tweet. Not because I don’t like him, I have enormous respect for him, but mainly because the whole threa exemplifies why I stay off twitter.

      I like that Defrancesco livery. Very bright and recognizable.

      Really hope that the Bathurst 12 hours can go ahead this year. Great event at a great circuit.

      Yh that’s an unfortunate photo for Budkowski. Don’t thing it’s anything more than misfortune.

      And wow, a car launch in the middle of January? How times have changed…

      1. Not meant as a reply sorry

    2. Maybe he just forget that in the new woke reality you only allowed to express your opinion if you’re asked to.

      Or maybe he just got tired of unending stream of comments and mentions about it. Did you see that bbc article comment section? The amount of sore hatred in comments section is out of this world…

    3. Well he’s not wrong, I still see some odd comments here sometimers about how the FIA should still reverse the result of the championship. It’s illogical, nonsensical, and simply not on the table. In that sense, whoever those people are, really do need to move on.

      1. No, they should not “move on”.
        No one must ever be asked to move on from asking for accountability for rule-breaking.
        If anything, it’s the ones who say “move on” that should open their second eye.

        1. There’s a difference between asking for accountability for rule breaking, and asking for a world championship which has long been celebrated and finalised, to be overturned which is specifically what Damon Hill addressed. I’ve been keen for many years to see reform in the FIA and the inconsistent manner in which regulations are enforced, but nothing will change that Max Verstappen is the 2021 F1 Drivers World Champion.

          1. I doubt anyone pushing for FIA reform really cares about Max or who is champion – if they are Hamilton fans they will be pained that Hamilton is not the champion, but I actually have not seen any Hamilton fans saying take the shampionship away from Max.
            Let Max have it.
            Just like the FIA won’t change it – and perhaps shouldn’t, given how tainted it obviously is – in the same way nothing will change the fact of what happened in Abu Dhabi, as a culmination of a season in which we saw farces like Spa and the extreme inconsistency of steward rulings.
            That’s why reform is critical.

        2. @NeverElectric Yes, they should move on.

          Damon, speaking as someone who (a) lost his father at a young age, throwing his family into financial turmoil (b) was trying to climb the motorsport ladder with no financial backing while trying to support a young family (including a child with Downs Syndrome) and pay a huge mortgage on his home and (c) had a title taken by him due to a deliberate crash, knows what he is talking about on the subject of moving on and growing when life throws setbacks at you.

          Incidents in your life are there to help you grow and develop strength of character, not to give you an excuse to throw your toys out the pram or to give you a perpetual excuse for everything that has gone wrong in your life.

          For the sport to move on, the fans should move on. Otherwise, next season will be even more toxic in forums like this than 2021 was (despite the incredible action on track we were all begging for over the last decade).

          1. Damon Hill, who along with Slater, Brundle and Herbert have been all over Sky Sports news this last week rehashing AD again following last weeks F1 show ‘Will Masi Survive?’ And reminding viewers that this weeks show; which will be free to air, is entitled ‘Was the AD GP Manipulated?’
            Maybe just a coincidence that Hill decided to poke the more radical Ham fans with a stick at this particular time?

        3. Hill was over it about 10 minutes after the race, and then he wasn’t and then he was again. It depended on what the previous speaker said.
          But agreed, not yet time to move on. They need to sort the system out such that a similar debacle can never happen again.

      2. I don’t agree with those who are calling for the result to be changed. However, I’m absolutely sick of people telling me I should “move on” or “get over it”.

        No, I won’t. This issue needs settling.

        The FIA need to confirm whether they believe it is acceptable for the race director to make up new rules and ignore existing ones whenever they feel like it. If they don’t, this needs codifying in the rules, with limits placed upon his power. If they do, they need to come out and say so, and then I can “move on” by accepting that F1 is not a sport and never watching or giving them a penny again.

        I see a glimmer of hope in the investigation resolving this to my satisfaction. But, unless it is, unless I can look at the outcome and see F1 as being a sporting contest rather than a TV reality show again, don’t expect me to “move on”, “get over it”, or anything else.

  3. I’m not going to get into that Damon tweet. Not because I don’t like him, I have enormous respect for him, but mainly because the whole thread exemplifies why I stay off twitter.

    I like that Defrancesco livery. Very bright and recognizable.

    Really hope that the Bathurst 12 hours can go ahead this year. Great event at a great circuit.

    Yh that’s an unfortunate photo for Budkowski. Don’t thing it’s anything more than misfortune.

    And wow, a car launch in the middle of January? How times have changed…

  4. What is the true greeness of electric vehicles. Is it that we convert smoke to toxic waste and pat ourselves on the back that we have gone green.
    I hear that it takes 2,000,000kg of water to process 1000kg of Lithium.
    Some will say thats fine because water is blue.
    Then again, lithium is a bit more expensive to recycle, that might change in future, who knows.
    What is the true cost of going “green” and who pays for it health wise.

      1. Many battery chemistries, including probably the “overall best” in terms of price vs. performance (LiFePo), do not use any Cobalt.

      2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
        14th January 2022, 8:57

        What sets EV’s aside from ICE is not just how green they are now but the potential to go greener in the very near future. The current direction of travel is greener electric and greener batteries. There are new battery chemistries (in cars now) which contain no cobalt or lithium and recently a version has been made which is more energy dense than lithium-ion.

        A recent study highlighted by Fully Charged suggested the extra carbon produced in the manufacture of an EV is recouped within the first 7000 miles of use.

        Contrary to popular opinion EV batteries are not dumped as Toxic waste. They are recycled or repurposed.

        Various forms of e-fuels might work for F1, but road cars will be predominantly Electric in the future because they are better.

        I respect your “Never Electric” stance (F1 or road car?) and there will always be ICE cars around, but maybe the era of the internal combustion engine is drawing to a close?

          1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk

            There is a constant stream of hype about battery technologies that work in a laboratory, but very few of these reach the market. There are a lot of requirements for a battery technology to be viable, it has to be producible in quantity, at low cost, it has to work in the hot and the cold, it can’t deteriorate too fast, has to retain charge long enough, need to be chargeable quickly enough, has to be fairly resilient to damage, it can’t spontaneously explode, etc, etc. Most promising battery technologies fail on one or more of these requirements.

            You appear to have unrealistic optimism, as do many.

          2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            14th January 2022, 13:24

            @aapje oh dear, got out of bed the wrong side this morning did we?

            Optimism, unrealistic or otherwise is what drives the human race forwards and yes of course in doing so we have to be prepared to fail.

            If the Nissan Leaf and Tesla had not come along (boosted by unrealistic optimism) where would we be? Tesla is worth more than the other 9 largest car makers put together so they must be on to something.

            Most car makers are winding down production of internal combustion engines. My mother died from a cancer related to Nox emissions so I for one will be glad to see the back of them in the average car. Roll on 2030.

            That constant stream of battery technologies will continue, it will take time, but enough will succeed. I’d bet good money on Sodium Ion being a big thing and possibly a game changer.

            Sales of EV’s are going through the roof. People are seeing the light, no optimism required!

          3. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk Nissan and Tesla could well afford to take the gamble. Not really optimism, but a well-timed calculated risk backed by huge advertising budgets and a favourable market.

            Indeed, many car manufacturers are gradually moving away from combustion engines – but then, government legislation isn’t giving them much choice, is it?
            And electric car sales are very location-specific. Great in the city, not so great in the expanses of rural/isolated zones. Also not so great where initial purchase costs are prohibitive and where there is limited electrical infrastructure. Nor for long-range or heavy-duty uses, at this stage.

            Yes, battery tech will continue to evolve. But it’s not ready to take over everything just yet, and won’t be in 8 years time either.
            There is still very much a strong need to find drop-in replacements for existing liquid fuels – and sooner rather than later.

          4. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            14th January 2022, 17:32

            To S

            Indeed, many car manufacturers are gradually moving away from combustion engines – but then, government legislation isn’t giving them much choice, is it?

            If that was true people wouldn’t have started buying EV’s 10 years ago, or anytime before 2030. The fact is Tesla’s success will put ICE car makers out of business if they are not careful. People WANT to buy cars that don’t spout carbon and killer Nox. Many are prepared to pay a premium and put up with the negatives.

            EVs are already cheaper to own over their lifetime than ICE. They’ll be cheaper to buy initially soon too. Battery prices are tumbling. Technology is improving fast.

            It won’t be long before mid range EVs can match the range of current ICE cars and the charge times will be 10 or 20 mins. What advantage then for an ICE in rural areas? None.

            I grant you there is a lots to improve and its coming…

          5. A minority of people will be buying any ‘thing’ at any time, for a multitude of reasons, @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk
            That doesn’t mean that that ‘thing’ is objectively better than all other comparable ‘things’ – only that they prefer it, or have had it foisted upon them.
            Tesla’s success will not put any multinational car manufacturers out of business. It puts very few under any significant pressure, even. The general market shift potentially could and is changing their conditions, but that isn’t controlled at all by Tesla. Governments are heavily influencing that, as is general social perception.
            Not everyone cares what their car emits – some care far more about what it costs to run, how far it can go, how heavy or large a load it can carry or tow, which wheels look good on it, or even what colour it is. And of those who do care greatly about emissions and environmental impact, many may not be able to buy it anyway.
            Battery tech is improving, I agree – however its far from ready to overtake the entire market. It could take 30 years, or 50 years, or more. Or possibly never.
            It will certainly be ‘right’ for a portion of the market, and that portion will inevitably grow over time.

            What advantages will there be for combustion engines then? That’s down to personal preferences, individual circumstances and government legislation, I think.
            Amish communities still use horses and other animals by choice, remote ‘poor’ communities may not even have that luxury and do everything with human effort, and some may simply choose existing machinery because they already have it, it works sufficiently well, it’s too expensive to replace and they may prefer it.
            Personally, I’m not planning on buying an electric-only vehicle in my lifetime. While petrol, diesel, and in the near future, their drop-in replacements are available, that’s my preference and suits my circumstances best. Maybe that will change in 30 years – who knows. Maybe in that time clean(er) synthetic or biofuels will take over from the mining of all the materials that go into battery production…

            The future is coming, but it’s not here yet. But when it does arrive, there will be a future coming…
            There is no definitive end-goal here – it’s all part of the process of evolution.

          6. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            15th January 2022, 19:45

            Well S, I’m almost speechless.
            You don’t care that your ICE car is polluting? REALLY?
            My Mother died from a cancer linked to Nox emissions. I care. You should.
            As for drop in replacements you are dreaming if you think these will come in soon. They won’t. More likely not at all in any significant amount.
            Synthetic fuels will be off the scale expensive and biofuels are lunacy. In future agricultural land will be needed to grow food not fuel. Photosynthesis is about 1% efficient whilst photovoltaic cells are about 25-40%. It’s a no brainer.

            Also the mining for battery materials you mention doesn’t add a massive amount more mining to what is done for ICE cars. You seem to forget this.

            Anyway some people are open to change and others not. What I’ve found is many people are irrationally and emotionally attached to their fossil fuel cars and this usually means I’m wasting my breath again.

            We won’t agree.

          7. I do care what my car is emitting @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk, which is why I hope they crack on with biofuel and synthetic fuel development.
            You are probably right – government legislation has massively set back future large-scale commercial development of liquid fuels – not because batteries are fundamentally better, but because they are popular and readily available. Populist governance is rife the world over, and wherever it isn’t is bashed for being ‘wrong’ or ‘backwards.’

            I find it interesting that (ignoring government control) you think ‘alternative’ fuel production would forever be unviable. Everything is expensive when it is new and in limited supply and production. Production would certainly be improved if it became necessary in large supply.
            Your short-sightedness (or narrow-mindedness) appears to prevent you from embracing other future techniques and technologies. The solution 50-100 years from now is likely not discovered and certainly not refined yet, and may well involve using a lot of the waste that we currently simply burn or put in landfills. Or flush down the toilet, even.
            Even a little more mining is more mining – and mining/mineral extraction and production is inherently dirty and inefficient. And given that mining for combustion engine is mostly of resources that are plentiful and easily recyclable with very minimal effort, it’s not a 1:1 comparison anyway.

            Many people are open to change. That doesn’t mean we all think the same changes are best, though. There are tens – maybe hundreds of millions of combustion engines in operation all over the world right now. It makes a great deal of sense to create cleaner fuels for them to use rather than render them completely unusable or obsolete just because one type of energy storage is chosen over another for subjective reasons. There is room in this world for diversity. All things can be improved without choosing one or the other.
            I know for a fact that no electric vehicle will do what I need it to do, and at a price I can afford, within the next 10 years. It’s not even a choice for me. It’s not just an emotional condition, it’s a practical one.
            Perhaps you have a higher income than I do. Perhaps you live in suburbia or inner-city and rarely leave that zone. Perhaps you only drive your car to work, or the shops, or take the kids to school. Your lifestyle and work is most likely totally different to mine, and therefore your automotive needs are also totally different.

            If you are intent on being so narrow in your views of the realities of the world in the present and near future, then yeah, we won’t agree.
            Batteries will be powering my phone and my tools, but not my car or work vehicles any time soon.

        1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk

          oh dear, got out of bed the wrong side this morning did we?

          A personal attack is not an actual argument.

          Optimism, unrealistic or otherwise is what drives the human race forwards

          You can be realistic and still go for it. But it’s noted that you don’t care for the truth. I do.

          I’d bet good money on Sodium Ion being a big thing and possibly a game changer.

          Jules Verne already claimed this in Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, so 150 years ago. Back then that didn’t work out so well.

          Sodium ion has inherently worse energy density, which means that it is extremely likely to not beat Lithium in one of the most important metrics for portable use. I personally expect there to be different technologies for fixed and portable batteries in the future.

          Sales of EV’s are going through the roof. People are seeing the light, no optimism required!

          With subsidies. It’s a little rich to pretend that people favor a technology when they are getting bribed to use it.

          There are real benefits to electric cars, but also real downsides. I hope that there will some big advances, because especially for people who don’t drive their cars that much, but do want/need the the option, electric cars are very uncompetitive in a fair marketplace.

          1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            14th January 2022, 17:19

            @aapje first off apologies for any offence caused. I’m just very confused with the negativity towards EVs.

            you don’t care for the truth

            Hmm… some people don’t believe we landed on the moon. I’ve tried giving them the facts, but it doesn’t work. Maybe I won’t try anymore. As for the truth. I have an EV with only 100 miles range. I don’t often need to go further and its awkward if I do, but I manage because it saves me £1800 a year and doesn’t pump out the kind of Nox that can kill. That is the truth and I care about it.

            It’s a little rich to pretend that people favour a technology when they are getting bribed to use it.

            First of all ‘Bribe’ is a loaded word. It suggests something underhand. Is that what you think? I prefer the correct word which is ‘Incentive’. Why not reward doing something that is good for the planet?

            And besides I don’t need to pretend. I buy an EV for the paltry financial incentives. I did it for ethical reasons and the great financial advantages. They are much cheaper to run than ICE (even when/if) e-fuels come. I get 2.5p a mile as opposed to my friends diesel at 14p a mile. Battery prices are tumbling so… people are doing this because its the right thing to do on many levels.

            I believe there will be budget priced EVs with over 250 miles of range that will charge in 10 minutes well before 2030. Call me overly optimistic if you like. The EV revolution is here and I have a big smile on my face.

          2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            14th January 2022, 17:21

            Typo – I didn’t buy an EV for the paltry financial incentives

          3. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk

            I’ve tried giving them the facts, but it doesn’t work.

            Your ‘facts’ look a lot like a rather biased opinion. I’ve actually looked at a paper of a sodium ion battery researcher and based my opinion on that.

            Meanwhile, you not only ignore that even if sodium ion batteries become commercially viable, they will not only have advantages, but also disadvantages, but also extrapolate your own needs to all of society.

            That is helpful if you want to convince me that you don’t care about others and their needs (or even your own indirect needs, like getting supplies to the stores you buy from), but not so helpful if you want to convince me that switching fully to battery vehicles with current technology won’t have big downsides. If you want to ‘sell’ something honestly, in contrast to using propaganda, you also have to discuss the downsides.

            Why not reward doing something that is good for the planet?

            When there are subsidies that are intended to make people change their behavior, you can’t claim that their behavior purely reflects their desires, just like you can’t claim that people go to work just because they like doing it. The salary and subsidy is intended to make them do things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

          4. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            14th January 2022, 18:56

            Well, we can argue back and forth all day and not agree.
            The fact of the matter is the EV revolution is here like it or not. The direction of travel is undeliable and you can’t wipe a smile of my face!
            Time will tell.

    1. Realistically, we all pay. It’s a smoke screen, for as long as we continue to use the environment to fuel our technological process, in whatever form that takes, rather than valuing efficient and truly sustainable advancement. The wonderful ecosystem that is our Earth will continue to degrade. We’re too busy competing with each other, and ourselves for some arbitrary “value”, for this to realised in time, unfortunately.

      However there is an argument to be made that technological advancement is more valuable than this planets ecosystem, and that should we become advanced enough, we will find or adapt to other planets which will fuel further advancement.

      We could value this planet above all else, but realistically there is no other answer than extinction going down that path. The balance, really, is keeping the planet survivable for long enough to get us elsewhere, and it’s questionable whether burning oil and coal at the rate we are/were, is going to achieve that.

      1. progress not process #editbuttonplease

    2. Since BEV (battery electric vehicles) are vastly more efficient than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles, even if the all the electricity used to charge the BEV is generated in a fossil-fuelled power plant, this is still better than an equivalent ICE car because you’ve burned considerably less fossil fuel (environmental benefit), and you haven’t burned it in the middle of a city where people can breathe in the toxic fumes and harmful particulates (considerable health benefits).

      In reality, there is a significant proportion of electricity generated from non fossil-fuels, so the environmental benefits are greater, and of course eventually no electricity will be generated using fossil fuels. Even now, it doesn’t take long to “earn back” the additional carbon emissions required to make a BEV vs. an ICE vehicle (

      Also, we will eventually get to the point where no new raw materials have to be mined to make the batteries, as over 99% of the materials can be recovered in the recycling process:

      1. All you say is very correct, but you skipped the part on how the battery gets made and how the raw materials are sourced. Everything has a price and that may not always be in cash it can be in environmental pollution.
        I am fine with using batteries and I also use as much solar power as I possibly can. However, I am not for a moment believing that even my solar panels appear out of thin air and producing them did not cause some pollution.
        The question is the balance and if we have attained the right balance or it is another form of creative accounting where you just shift the debt and losses into other books that don’t get seen.

        1. I agree that it is important to look at total lifecycle (manufacturing -> use/reuse -> recycling/disposal) environmental impact; I am confident that when looking at BEVs vs ICE, there are gigantic net environmental benefits to the world transitioning to BEVs.

          The final part of my comment was intended to address the environmental impact of making the batteries; pointing out that we will eventually get to a closed-loop situation with little to no mining necessary.

          Yes, there is a huge impact now, but let’s not pretend that producing all the stuff that goes into making an ICE car and then making it go is free from environmental impact. Did you know, for example, that cobalt is used in the refining of oil? ( Funny how all the people moaning about cobalt in batteries never mention that, isn’t it?So actually, if we move to mostly cobalt-free battery chemistries (which is happening – LFP is already over 50% of the total market volume), perhaps the world’s use of that particular element will actually decrease?

          Finally, what about the environmental impact of ICE vehicle maintenance? BEV maintenance is considerably lower; only possibly tyres may be used a little faster, but I’ve read plenty of anecdotal evidence that even higher tyre use isn’t a given

      2. @harrydymond

        Also, we will eventually get to the point where no new raw materials have to be mined to make the batteries, as over 99% of the materials can be recovered in the recycling process

        ‘Can’ is not the same as ‘will’ or ‘are.’

        We dump an enormous amount of waste that can theoretically be reused, but that aren’t (and where the costs of doing so are quite high).

        1. @aapje I agree that the amount of stuff we waste that could have been reused or recycled is utterly lamentable. For the most part, this tends to come down to the fact that the majority of people actually don’t care about the environment (despite how much they might claim), when caring for it requires some effort without remuneration, or worse, both effort and financial costs. However, I am confident that when it comes to car batteries, there will be sufficient financial incentive to ensure they don’t go to waste.

          Once a battery’s state of health makes it unusable in the car, it can still be used in static storage on the grid. Then, once truly dead it will have scrap value with the battery recycling firms.

    3. Not hard to find negative ‘stats’ on BEV, shills spouting rubbish are paid handsomely.
      I’m not sure why amateurs would do it for free.

      1. You can always tell who had their opinion on electric vehicles set by a Jeremy Clarkson column they once read in 2007, and haven’t bothered to update their thinking since.

  5. Why this stupid synthetic thing? Hardly green. Wish they would go electric, but it’s just going to end up as anachronistic as horse racing.

    1. @darryn like playing guitar, we should just listen to ai generated brain impulses. We should all become breatharians.

    2. If it’s a ‘true’ synthetic fuel it could be quite interesting.
      When using Wind/Solar and atmospheric C02/H2O capture to create a true synthetic fuel it is 100% green when operating and it allows for easy energy storage and continued use of the existing ICU powered vehicles/machines.

    3. Jack (@jackisthestig)
      14th January 2022, 17:06

      Why synthetic? F1 has a huge fan base that enjoys watching internal combustion powered racing. It would be foolish to risk throwing that all away on the presumption that in future it may be morally unacceptable to race anything other than BEVs.

      Future public perception is far from certain. Going ‘green’ seems fashionable at the moment but we are already seeing vast hikes in energy bills as a result of pursuing this dogma. What’s to say there won’t be a furious backlash against all things green and sustainable in the coming years when people can barely afford to power their homes let alone expensive electric cars.

  6. I really hope the Bathurst 12 hour goes ahead this year. I just can’t get into the classic 1000 any more, would much rather see GT cars and international talent tackle the mountain in a true endurance.

    1. Yup, last year’s 1000 was fairly humdrum, cars too evenly matched and reliable it seems. Even the wildlife wanted to leave early. 12hr has indeed been awesome.

  7. In other motorsport news, the guy who looks like Sam Bird is out of the Apprentice.

  8. I sometimes wonder if Liberty or this web publication is encouraging Lewis to stay quiet on his plans for the future.
    It’s the best way to keep F1 top-of-mind/clicks during the off season.

    1. I believe he is just evaluating what in his mind what happened and if he is better of sitting at home and playing the lottery. Random events have always influeced the outcome of races and will continue to do so, but to give the power to an individual who at an instance can just decide what the outcome will be, requires a lot of processing.

      1. Only for someone who’s never had a real (typical) job, or lived a ‘normal’ life.

        That power has been there for a long time, it just hasn’t occurred to many people that it has not been needed or used in that way before.
        That race’s specific circumstances warranted it, where others did not.

  9. Zak should get himself a shave, LOL.

    I checked the other Alpine team photo, but Budkowski is equally in that, so I don’t get the difference.

    COTD: Good joke.

    1. Note the extended middle finger…

    2. have a look at the finger on his knee

Comments are closed.