Why is Audi entering F1 the same year it drops combustion-engined road cars?

2022 Belgian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Audi has finally confirmed its long-rumoured plans to enter Formula 1 when the series introduces its new power unit regulations in 2026.

That year has already been marked as a significant one by the German car manufacturer. Last year it was widely reported Audi will stop launching new combustion-engined vehicles in 2026.

From 2033, Audi will only sell electric-engined cars. But if the company’s future is electric, that seems not to be reflected in its motorsport priorities.

Audi pulled out of the all-electric single seater series Formula E last year. Now it has announced it will develop a new hybrid engine for its F1 entry in 2026. As things stand, Audi’s first Formula 1 power unit could conceivably be the last new combustion engine it designs.

Developing a Formula 1 engine involves colossal sums. Audi wouldn’t be drawn even on a ballpark figure when it announced its plans today, but chairman Markus Duesmann said admitted “pretty high numbers” were involved and a “long-term investment.”

Audi canned its Formula E programme last year
So why is Audi spending presumably vast amounts on developing and promoting a type of engine its road car operation is abandoning? Two parts of F1’s new power unit rules proved attractive.

The 2026 hybrids will produce almost as much energy from their electric systems (350kW) as the internal combustion engines (400kW). And the latter will be powered by sustainable fuels – also known as ‘e-fuels’.

“Luckily the decision is to make the electric share in the power trains much bigger and to run the combustion engines with e-fuels from sustainable sources,” said Duesmann. He is convinced e-fuels will play a vital role in reducing the carbon emitted by existing vehicles.

“E-fuels will play a role in the world because the two billion cars that are on the roads, if we’re going to put them carbon-neutral, e-fuel is the solution,” he said. “What about planes, et cetera?

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“Formula 1, by the decision to go to e-fuels, would push the e-fuel development a lot.”

This is part of a wider push by the sport to reduce its emissions. “Also Formula 1 has decided to become carbon neutral by 2030. And that was the boundary condition for us to be able to decide.”

Electricity is replacing petrol power in Audi’s road car range
Audi will enter F1 at somewhat of a disadvantage as its rival manufacturers have long experience with the 1.6-litre V6 combustion engines which will remain in use once the new power units arrive.

“It’s clear we are, at the moment, where we are and the others have powertrains that work already,” Duesmann acknowledged. “But the changes in the rules were big enough for us to see a chance to step in and be competitive.”

The manufacturer is already scaling up its engine manufacturing facilities to prepare for the challenge of F1 competition. “The new rules are in place in 2026. And as we do a complete new powertrain, the combustion engine and also the electric side, that is not too long for us. So there’s a lot of pressure to do that.

“We will set up operations – we have motorsport facilities in Neuberg an der Donau which is close to Ingolstadt, our headquarter. Certainly we have to bring them to F1 standards. That takes long, it is already ongoing.

“We have a fantastic team of people there, motorsport experienced people, but we also have to hire some new people, this takes some time. And everything will be brand new. That is not long – less than four years from now we will be on the grid and racing in F1 races.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Audi’s chief technology offer Oliver Hoffman said the company’s move into Formula 1 was logical given its past experience in motorsport.

Audi is chasing Dakar success with its RS Q e-tron
“We started to electrify our motorsport programme beginning in 2012 with our hybrid cars at Le Mans,” he said. “We continued the task with Formula E and also with our Dakar project. We want to [be] the first car manufacturer [to win] the Rally Dakar with an electrified powertrain. So the logical next step is entering Formula 1.”

Hoffmann expects F1 will not only prove a useful laboratory for developing engines but also a means of increasing its engineers’ experience with cutting-edge powertrains.

“We expect technically the most highly-developed electric engines, they will be as powerful as the internal combustion engine we expect for the next years.

“And our engineers will learn a lot about the next generation of electric engines, battery technology and especially software. And Markus and me, our whole team will love the challenge in Formula 1.”

While he admits preparing an engine for 2026 will be a “big challenge”, Hoffmann is hopeful Audi will be “able to enter on eye-height to all the other competitors.”

“We love the challenge. We were able to run the Dakar and to develop the Dakar car, which is also a very complex drivetrain, in less than one year. I think we will be able to develop this powertrain possible also [by] 2026.

“Again thanks to the FIA, thanks to Formula 1 to find a way and a huge step forward in terms of sustainability with a clear focus on the electrified powertrain. We have a lot of competencies for electrified drivetrain in Neuberg and so I’m really looking forward I think we will be on the stage in 2026.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Securing Audi’s participation is a coup for Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali, who previously worked within the Volkswagen Group. Duesmann admitted that link was useful for Audi, but made it clear it was the sport’s power unit rules which swung the decision.

The four rings will arrive on the F1 grid in 2026
“Certainly it did help to have this connection,” he said. “But it was also important that we know each other, so certainly that was one of the very important points.

“But the most important point certainly is the change in the rules that does allow us to do a new powertrain.”

Become a RaceFans Supporter

RaceFans is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the same in whichever currency you use) you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing RaceFans today and in the future.

Become a RaceFans Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:

2022 Belgian Grand Prix

Browse all 2022 Belgian Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

56 comments on “Why is Audi entering F1 the same year it drops combustion-engined road cars?”

  1. I’d imagine as cars move to electric their cultural impact on the market will be diminished. Electric car rips the USP out of each manufacturer. They become rolling silhouettes almost indistinguishable from each other, purely utilitarian vehicles. A racing presence will enable them to differentiate on a branding level, because cars are now really brands, like clothing. A racing needs combustion engines and sound to be financially prolific because its entertainment.

    1. Yup, really what’s the point of a racing machine if it doesn’t have a flaming guitar soloist suspended in front of it?

    2. Erlich Beavith
      27th August 2022, 11:15

      You’ve stated perfectly how I feel about this shift. It’s a further commodification of a commodity. ‘Silhouettes’ is an excellent description as we all will now just tell people we drive ‘a car’. Won’t be necessary to elaborate further.

      1. I can understand feeling that way but in reality it is not true. A Rivian R1T is a different from a Tesla Y as a Range Rover is from a Toyota Rav 4.

        As EVs become more widespread, people will get over the fact they don’t go vroom vroom any more, and understand that besides that, different cars handle differently and different suspension, weight distribution, capabilities, interiors, etc, just like they always have.

  2. They’ll be back to combustion one day. Electric vehicles for everyone is simply not achievable or sustainable.

    1. Hexagonal Pensioner
      26th August 2022, 12:37

      I went to a lecture 20 years ago where an engineer from a well respected consultancy said the best option is to burn hydrogen in an ICE. Toyota and a few others are finally looking at this.

      Re. Audi, there’s a difference between no longer designing petrol/diesel cars and not marketing them.

    2. No is the short answer while the long answer: they will never return Eletric will be the standard what you think is about fuel those will be all different. Generating your own energie will be much easier then petroleum and MUCH cheaper.

      Next fase will be electric storage everywhere this means the price of 1 kW/h will be 0.01 Euro or less when that happens.
      So your house generate electric and you put in storage (at your house) and you can use it for everything.

      You think i can do only 400 miles then i have to charge for a hour just check Mercedes electric cars they will do 1000miles and load within 5 minutes..

      1. Did you see what they need to do to get enough recourses for 1 batterypack? We need to dig through half the earth to find enough.

        1. Are you worried the availability of about Nickel, Lithium, Sodium, Silicon or something else?

        2. Do some research on the latest battery technologies. You’ll realise your comment is completely wrong. See sodium ion batteries.

      2. To drive 1000 miles at a reasonable speed will require 10 to 15 kW (optimistic for a Tesla at 50 to 60 mph) over a period of 20 hours. Or 200 to 300 kW Hrs. Good luck finding a car with that big a battery.
        A max size home charger (208 V 100 amps) can provide 20 kW so it will take 10 to 15 hours to charge, assuming the battery system can take the heat.
        Going with a 600 V commercial “fast” system at 100 amps gets you 60 kW so it will only take 3.5 to 5 hours for your 1000 mile trip.
        Even if a 1,200 V 200 amp system were available, it would take an hour assuming the car didn’t go up in flames, that your local grid could handle a 240 kW load and the battery charging capability were linear and not taper off above 70 or 80%.
        End result, your 1,000 mile trip will require (at home) charging for roughly the same duration as the trip you are planning. Battery, local grid, charging system capacity and alternative home based loads can and will provide additional challenges.
        Electric storage … not the current problem (yes, pun intended). The power still needs to be generated … somewhere and somehow. Then you store it.
        Like the economics textbook says, page one paragraph one, “There is no such thing as a free lunch”. Cheap, really cheap power is a myth. By the time you factor in capital cost, distribution, operating costs and financing, the actual cost of generation starts to look small. Even if generation were free, it will still cost upwards of $ .10 a kWHr. In Europe, trippple that. Wind and solar, double it yet again.
        Yes, electrics are going to take over. No question, just a matter of time, but don’t expect the ride to be smooth or cheap.
        Mercedes is usually quoting range in Km. Just make sure you have your conversion correct. 1,000 miles is 1,600 km.

        1. Yes, electrics are going to take over. No question, just a matter of time, but don’t expect the ride to be smooth or cheap.

          That’s not really the point. For the sake of the planet it is necessary and don’t let anyone tell you different. I’ve seen so much anti EV propaganda lately, much of it instigated by the fossil fuel industry, its sickening that people believe it.

          There is no question we are at a tipping point. EVs will be cheaper than their ICE equivalents much sooner than people think, they are already way cheaper to own over their lifetime. Yes there is cost and difficulty in the changeover, but once done will be a significantly cheaper cleaner solution. 250 mile range EVs that charge in 20 mins are becoming commonplace, soon 400 miles and 10 minutes. That will be fine for most road users.

          Within the next 10 years the number of Fossil Fuel filling stations will reduce (electric down a cable is a way better distribution method) and with 20 years who knows? They may become rare.

          How does this all affect F1? Its hard to say but everything changes, even if you don’t want it to.

          1. According to scientists, rocks are not conscious so they just dont care about any pollution and animals are dumb and already went extinction very very quickly due to some asteroids long time ago, which by the way permitted the emergence of the various homos.

            So pretty much none of this narrative of ”the planet is in danger” is scientific and scientists have proven that a mass extinction can be beneficial, it’s not necessarily bad. In fact it’s not even bad or good, it’s just is, since there is no nothing of ”good’ or ”bad” in science.

    3. Agreed @superman

    4. They will keep looking for quite some time.

    5. Only expect the most ignorant still believe there will still be anything not Fully electric or electrified.

      1. The truth is always somewhere in between. The current battery technology is unsustainable as well as using only ‘fossil’ fuels to provide energy.

        1. Sustainable, recyclable battery technology is happening faster than people realise and that’s good news. Fossil fuels must go.

  3. One has to wonder how long F1 will keep it’s combustion engines.

    With a lot of the developed world making moves to ban the sale of new combustion engine cars in the 2030s. F1 might start to look a bit like a dinosaur.

    Hopefully electric car technology can get fast enough to make some good high level racing cars.

    1. Motorsport is archaic already.

      The problem with this line of thinking with regard to electric power is that promoters and the FIA and F1 know full well there is a risk they won’t be able to sustain events if the cars are silent. It’s a huge element to the show and experience. It allows a viewer to engauge with the vehicle in front of them. It doesn’t matter if you are poor or rich, you can enjoy the sound of a car. Once you remove that, the only way to enjoy just watching the car… is to be able to drive one. ICE’s are way more than just propulsion.

      if we look at very modern research on music we know sound generates emotions, so much so it is used as a genuine therapy tool. Sounds (and smell) are GIGANTICALLY important. To say ICEs are dinosaur like is to ignore their over-arching cultural benefit. Sound and smell are integral to the human experience. And this is very very modern thinking on a deep biological level.

      1. I only watch for the smell.

      2. Indeed I don’t watch Top Fuel dragsters for the fuel efficiency.

    2. They will keep these engines so long as they are necessary to race at F1 speeds for 300 kilometers.

      The problem with electric cars isn’t that they’re not fast enough, but that they can’t last. You’d need to make the cars much heavier to drag along batteries, and that’s not going to happen as the cars would be huge and easily over twice their current weight (2000+ kg) as heavier cars would also need more energy to complete the race distance at respectable speed. Alternatively, they can swap batteries multiple times.

      With the current technology, it’s just not feasible. Electric cars can drive short races around an FE track, but not race Grand Prix at proper circuits.

  4. Securing Audi’s participation is a coup for Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali, who previously worked within the Volkswagen Group.

    This is why the Andretti bid is dead in the water. I would like to know what other guarantees have been given to VW to secure their entry what will Mercedes and Renault do?

    1. They will step out because they don’t stand a chance against ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’.

  5. The articles headline is “Why is Audi entering F1 the same year it drops combustion-engined road cars?”

    That’s when I think about it, are they once they’re in they demand the FIA and FOM that F1 has to be an electric series and throw all their toys out of the pram? Seems a little odd.

  6. From 2033, Audi will only sell electric-engined cars

    I don’t believe this for a second, but look forward to being proved wrong. I’m a cynic so come 2033, they’ll have either decided that hybrid technologies have developed so well that purely electric isn’t enough, or they’ll blame governments for a lack of infrastructure to support 100% electric products.

    1. Indeed, the infrastructure to support that doesn’t exist, as many people from urban centers are finding out after a few months of summer holidays across Europe. Audi sells 1,5 million cars a year, and if they want to sell 1,5 million fully electric cars in less than a decade, they’re going to have to do some pretty fancy lobbying to get governments to pay for a charging infrastructure.

      At the same time, those same governments aren’t going to let electric cars escape taxes forever, and then those 2000 kg heavy ‘sports SUVs’ Audi likes to sell suddenly become a prime target for financing the excessive load these truck-like vehicles put on road infrastructure.

      1. This is really a dumb take. It’s electricity which is everywhere. Even the dumpy mall in the bad part of town has a ton of plugin spots for EV’s. Europe is obviously behind the States technologically, but you just put electrical outlets in a damn parking spot.

        1. This is really a dumb take.

          I was really waiting for the counter argument and then…

          It’s electricity which is everywhere.

        2. Not only is electricity not everywhere – it’s also not free, nor available in infinite quantities.

          At least you prefaced your own comment with your opening sentence….

          1. Not only is electricity not everywhere – it’s also not free, nor available in infinite quantities.

            I apologise in advance for being a tad rude, but there’s no hope for humanity with comments like these.

            Electricity is everywhere that people live and fossil fuel filling stations are, that’s sufficient. Its also cheaper, more sustainable and easier to distribute.

          2. But you simultaneously think that we will easily have enough to produce synthetic fuel, even though that process requires significantly more power than would be required to charge an electric car.

          3. I apologise in advance for being a tad rude, but there’s no hope for humanity with comments like these.

            There’s no hope for anyone who isn’t open-minded about the future, @biskitboy.
            Electricity for everything is simply not it – different people and different activities in different locations need different solutions.
            It’ll be perfect for some, without a doubt – but not for all. Not for many decades at the absolute earliest.

            Electricity is everywhere that people live and fossil fuel filling stations are

            I suggest you head out of the city a bit and you’ll see that isn’t actually true.
            Again, for many, most even, it is – but not all.

            Come on, anon. You misrepresent me every time you appear here.
            I do think there is a large market for sustainable liquid fuels for the future – not because of how energy intensive they are to produce, but because the storage method is more convenient and suitable for many uses.
            For many uses, batteries are insufficient when compared with combustible liquids, and that will remain the case for decades. Pretty much every thing you eat and use has reached you because of diesel, and as of today there is no viable replacement for that within the next 20+ years.
            Even the batteries in all those electric cars comes as a result of mining, transporting and processing using huge quantities of diesel and gas.

            It’s blindingly obvious that many pushing the all-electric cause suffer from a major lack of understanding of how the primary production, processing, manufacturing and transport industries work and relate to every other aspect of life.
            Liquid fuels are a necessity, and I will continue to argue that the cleaner and more sustainable they are, the better off everyone on Earth will be.

          4. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            27th August 2022, 14:53

            I suggest you head out of the city a bit and you’ll see that isn’t actually true.

            In response to the comment

            Electricity is everywhere that people live and fossil fuel filling stations are

            I think you are losing it bro.
            Where people live… er their house. Most houses have electric. Where filling stations are… hmmm pretty sure they use electric to pump the fuel.
            If you dont like EVs just say it. Dont make silly excuses. I give up.

          5. Most. Not all.
            Your lack of awareness of people living in remote locations, third-world countries or even just in poverty is quite disappointing. Not surprising, I’ll admit – but disappointing nonetheless.

            Oh, and I don’t like EV’s. They don’t fulfil my needs and won’t for a very long time, if ever. But that has nothing to do with the fact that my point is valid.
            Electricity and batteries will not replace petrol, diesel, bunker oil or aviation fuel for a long time yet.
            You and your city-dwelling types can have your electric cars and enjoy all the benefits they bring to you – but accept that they don’t bring all the same positives to others.
            People will need liquid fuels for both of our lifetimes, and for out children’s, and even for theirs. And probably for even longer than that.
            So let’s put plenty of focus on making clean fuels that compliment electricity and batteries, yeah?

      2. “Public chargers would need to deliver more than 20 percent of the electricity
        consumed by electric vehicles in 2030” [mckinsey.com]. Is that the infrastructure you’re talking about?
        Home, workplace and depot charging is, and apparently will still be, the vast majority of all EV charging. So in Europe – that’s 230v GPOs and up.

        1. Please use V for volts, 230V one phase ~400V three phase. Multiply with current – Amps – you’ll get power in Watts, multiply power with time and you’ll get energy needed. Increase in demand for electric energy to make 100% electric mobility is not in Gigawats but Terrawatts. Without nuclear power plants we cannot make that transition at the moment. However clever politicians in Germany relied on Russian natural gas to make ‘green’ transition. The future looks bright indeed.

          1. This is laughable. The move to EVs is hitting the upslope of the S curve. It’s happening. The ‘naysayers’ will keep trotting out their propaganda. The auto industry and Governments will make this happen. Sure if everyone had an EV tomorrow there would be problems, but its not happening like that. Its a process and one that must happen. Its amazing what can happen in 10 or 20 years.

      3. Nothing in your comment will stop the large scale introduction of EVs.

        1. Nobody wants to ‘stop’ anything, but the reality is that a lot needs to happen for all vehicles to be replaced by electric alternatives. Currently, less than 5% of vehicles in the UK is fully electric. In Germany it’s less than 3%. Just looking at new registrations doesn’t tell the whole story.

          Charging an EV at home is not a viable solution for many people living in small houses, apartments, flats, terrace housing from the mid 20th century which tens to be built right up to the street, or inner cities. This accounts for the vast majority of people in most European countries. Not everyone has room for two cars on their front porch, and they won’t in 2035 either. That’s not going to change, so there will be a need to places to charge cars on public ground.

          Currently, public parking places along streets, near malls, in urban parking garages, near office buildings, and out of town mega-stores have indeed seen a marked increase in the number of EV-charging places, but generally these are still only a fraction of the total spaces available at these locations. Can this change? Sure, but it hasn’t yet and it’s going to be a huge investment that – as the number of EVs increases – can’t continue to be financed without making these vehicles subject to the same (or higher) taxes as petrol or diesel fueled vehicles. The current ‘free ride’ EVs get to stimulate their use is going to have to stop sooner or later.

  7. We want to [be] the first car manufacturer [to win] the Rally Dakar with an electrified powertrain. So the logical next step is entering Formula 1.

    I don’t get it really, electric, electric, electric… How is the next logical step F1?

    If they are in it for the battery technology and software, expect them to leave after some years, like Honda. That is the same reason they were coming back to F1.

    Once you have that software and tech, and how to harness and deliver that electric energy, what will be the motivation then?

    1. Once you have that software and tech, and how to harness and deliver that electric energy, what will be the motivation then?

      Selling it en masse, @skipgamer.
      Motorsport is a prime marketing medium. If it wasn’t, no manufacturer would ever participate with their own funds.

    2. There are a few racing teams, and a few marketing teams. A company like Audi, which hops from series to series to promote their latest products, is firmly in the second group. They don’t need to be involved with F1 to develop technologies, they can just develop those technologies, test them on their own track, and not bother with F1 races. F1 is for marketing, and that makes it worth the extra effort and costs.

      At least, so long as they can present themselves as a competitive entry. So it’ll be interesting to see how far Liberty and the FIA are willing to bend to accommodate them. They’ve already dropped the MGU-H, of course, and for their part Audi knows from prior experience with the FIA and ACO that these governing bodies are quite willing to adjust the regulations to suit the marketing needs of the manufacturers.

      Nobody at the VW Group wants to be embarrassed by another Toyota-esque F1 fiasco. Liberty and the FIA understand this. How they’ll ‘make it work’ remains to be seen.

  8. OK they are virtue signaling by saying they are going to stop selling ICE cars.
    All Electric cars will never be viable. They know it, they have done the math. But they cant be the first ones to acknowledge this otherwise they will incur the wrath of the woke. So they go along until the governments realizes it wont work.

    1. Sales now, practicalities later….

    2. Bear in mind they’re manufacturing the most efficient ICEs on the market.

    3. All Electric cars will never be viable

      They will

      EVs are cheaper to own, will soon have the range and charging speed to match an ICE. Audi are saying this because they know people will buy the cheaper, cleaner alternative.

      1. Will it be cheaper tho when fossil fuel cars start to become rare? Be sure that the government will tax the hell out of it to recoup what they don’t make on fuel taxes and the taxpayer will also pay for infrastructure development. They’re only cheap now to incentivise sales

        1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
          27th August 2022, 11:19

          Yes they will be cheaper. The main saving is fuel cost per mile. About 25% of ICE.
          Also servicing and repair is about 30% of the cost.
          Any government would have to tax them at about 500% of ICE to make them equivalent in total cost of ownership. Either way we must stop burning fossil fuel.
          There is no other way.
          Hydrogen and efuels too expensive.

          1. You’ve missed the point, @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk.
            *Today* they are cheaper with the current tax systems and incentives in place.
            As a larger percentage of people transition to electric, governments will raise taxes accordingly. They will not take a loss.
            Added to that cost is that as electricity demand increases, so does its cost (which impacts the cost of everything else electricity is used for), so your cheap ‘fuel’ also gets more expensive – and it, too, is taxed. Tax doesn’t go down for long, it only ever goes up in the long term.
            Also, given that many charging stations at shopping malls, etc, are paid for by the company based there, they won’t be giving electricity away for free forever either. That they currently do is just a marketing incentive to get you inside.
            As you note, power infrastructure is provided by private investment – and private investment is all about profits and shareholder gains. Noticed your power bills going up…?

            Your electric future is going to be at least as expensive financially as petrol and diesel are currently.

          2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
            27th August 2022, 17:43

            I didnt miss the point S i just think its an unlikely scenario. I even estimated as a 500% tax on the electric. I think you missed that. Also even if it will eventually cost the same to own an EV as it would an ICE, we should still get rid of thise dirty, poluting, NOx emitting dinosaurs. Make the world a better place.

          3. I even estimated as a 500% tax on the electric. I think you missed that.

            I didn’t miss it. I think it’s entirely possible that costs will rise that far.
            Petrol used to be about 40c per litre when I was a kid in the remote town where I lived at the time. It recently hit $2.70.
            You honestly think electricity won’t do the same when your privatised power companies have you by the throat?
            Except with electricity, it won’t just be your car that costs more to run….

            Yeah, I absolutely agree about environmental impact. The sooner we move away from oil-based fuels, the better.
            But electricity isn’t the only solution – in fact it isn’t the solution for everyone, nor in every situation. Even people who drive an electric car will still need liquid fuels for other things.
            Plant-based fuels are a definite improvement, as are biofuels and synthetics. And their costs will drop as supply volume increases.
            Not the perfect solution, perhaps – nothing is, electricity and batteries included. But it’s progress in all areas, and that’s what we should be working toward.
            Not just in one area.

        2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
          27th August 2022, 11:21

          Plus infrastructure will be mostly provided by private investment (it is now) because there is money to be made there.

  9. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    27th August 2022, 19:09

    True I’m thinking of the 90-95% of car owners who might be able to get an EV that meets their needs. And i truly believe this could happen in the next 10-15 years. A big chunk of the reduced emiisions requirement is here.
    Im sorry you dont think an EV will meet your needs in the near future.
    I was thinking of the rest of humanities needs. Those people who live in poverty in the third world who’ll be most affected by climate change.

    Liquid drop in replacements will still emit carbon and NOx and I doubt these can become mainstream because of cost, but ill be happy to be proved wrong.

    As a side note, if you think Im passionate about the irradication of fossil fuels youd be right. My Mothers fatal cancer was linked to NOx emmisions. They need to go.

    Anyway happy F1 watching.

    Thats my last word.

    1. True I’m thinking of the 90-95% of car owners who might be able to get an EV that meets their needs.

      Not even close. Halve it, I’d reckon.
      It’s not just that an electric could fulfil their needs, you also have to consider their personal desires (do they actually want an electric car?) Then you’ve got purchase and change-over costs – a relatively small proportion of the population can actually afford to do so in that 10-15 year timeframe.
      I’ve only owned 2 cars in more than that time, and they were both (well) used when I bought them. I couldn’t rush out and buy a brand new electric one even if I wanted to. Not even a 25 year old hybrid Prius.

      I was thinking of the rest of humanities needs. Those people who live in poverty in the third world who’ll be most affected by climate change.

      Indeed they will – but they are also most affected by their personal and regional economic situation. A huge number of those people don’t have a car – and may never, for that reason.
      Many of those people, however, still use liquid fuels and gases in old machinery to make a living. Again, ‘upgrading’ to electric is not even a fantasy for them.

      Liquid drop in replacements will still emit carbon and NOx and I doubt these can become mainstream because of cost, but ill be happy to be proved wrong.

      Bushifires create emissions. Animals create emissions. Humans too, even without machinery. Decommissioning and ‘recycling’ old cars and trucks creates emissions. As does mining, transporting, refining and processing minerals and materials for battery production.
      It’s a fact of life.
      The best we can do is manage it at this stage, and make sure we don’t expose ourselves to unhealthy levels.
      What we can’t do, of course, is ignore the fact that people still need to live in what is an increasingly expensive world with higher and higher demands on our finances.
      Right now there are 10’s of millions of petrol and diesel burning cars, trucks and buses on the road that you want to completely replace… That in itself is an enormous waste, when they could continue their working life simply by sipping a substantially cleaner and more renewable liquid fuel with little or no modification.
      Sucking a little carbon or NOx is what some people just have to put up with in order to feed their families and provide for their community. Being unable to earn a living leads straight to mental and physical illness…. That’s not nice either.

Comments are closed.