2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

Aircraft we agree on. Long range / large aircraft are not going to be EVs. Synthetic fuel might be a good thing for them, partly because you can design the fuel specifically for the use.

You mean "not going to be BEVs" there's no reason they couldn't be electric propfans with (syn/bio) fuel. On the contrary propfans are more efficient for airliners, as well as fuel cells are more efficient than jets.

Farm vehicles use huge amounts of energy at times. A battery powered tractor pulling a large plough in heavy ground would be depleted in short order, for example.

Perhaps. Hard to tell without actual calculations.

[mzso]

Money is not a technical issue. It's a political one. The money is there but the choices of what to spend it on have fallen, so far, elsewhere.

The world, for example, spends $2 trillion/ year on bombs and bullets. Some / all of that could be spent on other things. That it isn't is because of decisions made by governments.

That money, the people employed, the resources use, could all be used on other stuff e.g. world wide renewables.

Like I said, it's not a technical block.

It's not to the detriment of living standards, however. It's about making choices of what is the best use of people and resources. Some people think wasting it on pointless military toys is silly, for example.

Making some (largely necessary) bombs and bullets is nowhere near the cost (particulary human and machine cost) of moving the whole energy sector to renewables. Especially knowing how poor their EROI and longevity is, which also entails higher costs after the whole thing is done. And a lot of recyclable waste.

[Just_a_fan]

Aircraft we agree on. Long range / large aircraft are not going to be EVs. Synthetic fuel might be a good thing for them, partly because you can design the fuel specifically for the use.

You mean "not going to be BEVs" there's no reason they couldn't be electric propfans with (syn/bio) fuel.

Yes, I meant BEV.

[Just_a_fan]

Making some (largely necessary) bombs and bullets is nowhere near the cost (particulary human and machine cost) of moving the whole energy sector to renewables. Especially knowing how poor their EROI and longevity is, which also entails higher costs after the whole thing is done. And a lot of recyclable waste.

Again, bombs are only necessary because of political differences. They aren't inherently necessary.

It doesn't just have to be bombs. In the UK, we have a railway being built that no one wants and few will benefit from. It's priced at over £100bn. We need new nuclear power stations. We could build plenty of those and other systems based on renewables fir the cost of the railway. Why we aren't is only down to politicians saving face / being scared of nuclear.

[JordanMugen]

I'm doing both! Heat pump up on my wall, two BEVs outside, 98% renewable in the socket. At the same time exporting to Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, UK.

Do you miss the last time you had a petrol hot hatch (or sportscar) with an internal combustion engine and manual transmission? I don't feel ready to give it up yet, it's so much fun snicking through the gears, stabbing the throttle to an instant bellow from the exhaust (no turbos here!) and rev matching downshifts on every single drive.

Yet it's necessary for ICEs to be gone I suppose.

Here in Australia, if you go for a drive you'll be lucky to count 1 BEV out of 200 cars you see on the road. For now, you don't feel socially unacceptable when driving an ICE as nearly everyone else still is (for now). With very low fuel excise and no annual CO2 road tax in Australia, it's little wonder perhaps? The policies in Ireland (for instance) seem far more effective at getting people to get rid of their polluting car (e.g., hot hatchback) that is expensive to tax and fuel, and get a diesel, hybrid, PHEV or EV instead.

Of course even in Australia this will change (presumably?), and petrol will become increasingly unavailable as demand reduces, just as LPG (liquid petroleum gas) is already more difficult to find due to reduced demand.

The point is that politics prevents the problem being solved, not the available technology. We could run the entire planet on renewables within 20 years using today's technology if we wanted to. But politics prevents it.

More like people not willing to sacrifice their standard of living. Which would be rather uncomfortable for the majority of people.

True on both counts. The Prime Minister of Australia even said directly he had "no intention to tax the weekend", i.e., no taxes or bans on large dual-cab ICE utilities (pickup trucks) which are then used to bring out your motorboat, jetskis or dirt trail bikes and the like for polluting ICE-based recreation on weekends. All these high emitting, unnecessary activities are things which a progression taxation regime would tax heavily and discourage.

In itself, environmental policies mean you would not run a Formula One grand prix. Transporting tonnes of cargo by polluting air and ship would be and is totally unacceptable. Furthermore, some attendees are not travelling by public transport but rather by plane or ICE which is unacceptable. Power on site at the Melbourne Grand Prix is often coming from diesel ICE generators -- again totally acceptable. So recreation is bad for the environment and is just plain unacceptable, be it the Australian Grand Prix, Australian Open, Olympics (even worse!) -- these lavish events are totally environmentally untenable.

The key to reducing environmental impact, as mzso says, is to slash living standards to the absolute minimum. Formula One, where hundreds of millions of Euros are wasted on making a car slightly faster than somebody else's substantially similar car, being abolished is perhaps a very important part of sending the right message of tackling environmental issues?

To think vehicles like BMW X7, Rolls Royce Cullinan and Cadillac Escalade, that are both much larger than necessary and emit huge amounts of CO2 from their enormous engines, are built and encouraged (by the capitalist system of greed is good...?)... They are environmentally unnecessary aren't they? I guess Denmark (and the like) have the right idea: all you can do is tax vulgar behemoths by 200-300% to mould the free market to the more sustainable model you wish it to take.

Which would be rather uncomfortable for the majority of people.

Actually the majority of people in the world are quite poor, are they not?

It's just the matter of reducing the living standards of outliers in ridiculously rich Westernised countries -- so just a matter of needing a world parliament with the initiative to equalise living standards perhaps and get rid of the arbitrary countries as John Lennon sang?

Again, bombs are only necessary because of political differences. They aren't inherently necessary.

Certainly! Without arbitrary country divisions, bombs and military would be unnecessary, again as the Beatle sang in a pop song.

This would seem easier said than done, and also constitutes extreme left wing politics, which around half (going by typical results, and probably more when including those who vote for moderate centre-left parties) of the voting population are uncomfortable with and unwilling to vote for.

I guess the European Parliament should be applauded for daring to fix the problem of polluting ICEs in a relatively timely manner, even though it could easier be (and is) kicked down the road to future decades by other parliaments?

Getting politicians to fix something that will be a problem in 50, 100 or 1000 years is quite the miracle really! As the Australian Prime Minister shows, many other politicians and voters could not care less about a problem that far out (even if there are extreme weather events, droughts and bushfires from climate change happening now).

[Big Tea]

In UK 133,000 people work directly in defence, and probably more than double that in the industry as a whole as well.
It is not just spending on bombs, it is the largest employer in most countries.

OK, you could switch them to make renewables, but we have an idea how easy that would be.

[hUirEYExbN]

... The key to reducing environmental impact, as mzso says, is to slash living standards to the absolute minimum....

That's absolutely right. However, how reduced is enough? If we reduce living standards too much then what's the point in living? Living too poorly for the sake of future generations also living poorly is an silly suggestion.

Life is and always was on the clock and extending the survival of the human race by a few centuries may not be worth the sacrifices. Of course we should do what we can, but not to the extent of making life hellish.

[Rodak]

But airplanes for sure. There's just no credible alternative for electrified airplanes other than fuel cells.

Good luck with that. Fuel cells are at best 60% efficient, you have to haul the fuel for them, which I suspect you believe will be liquid hydrogen, which requires a pressure vessel carrying a cryogenic liquid. Fuel cells are not good at generating high currents which would be needed for take off, so you would probably have to carry batteries for sudden loads. I could go on and discuss the tankage volume for your fuel and lots of other technical stuff, but fuel cells are not the solution for electric planes.....

[henry]

Aircraft we agree on. Long range / large aircraft are not going to be EVs. Synthetic fuel might be a good thing for them, partly because you can design the fuel specifically for the use.

You mean "not going to be BEVs" there's no reason they couldn't be electric propfans with (syn/bio) fuel. On the contrary propfans are more efficient for airliners, as well as fuel cells are more efficient than jets.

Farm vehicles use huge amounts of energy at times. A battery powered tractor pulling a large plough in heavy ground would be depleted in short order, for example.

Perhaps. Hard to tell without actual calculations.

A quick look at a tractor forum suggests a typical tractor ploughing outputs 50kW. For an eight hour ploughing day that’s 400kWh. For an 80% efficient BEV powertrain that’s a convenient 500kWh of battery capacity. Tractors are weight sensitive to reduce ground pressure either to avoid compaction or cope with mud. Out in the fields there’s not much opportunity to recharge.

Of course there’s an equivalent to insulating for houses which is not to plough. Ploughing releases CO2 by exposing organic matter that can oxidise. For a farm that doesn’t plough a BE tractor might suit.

[Mattchu]

I came here looking for information on 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation yet all I see is politics and generally talk about electric vehicles, very little on the potential specs of said engine!

[aral]

Mattchu is 100% correct. All this talk about HGVs etc has nothing to do with the F1 Hybrid power unit. Some posts have been zapped. Please onfine discussion to the topic. It helps !

[Stu]

All posts on page 48 (except for Mattchu) relate to something other than F1 engines, why have these not been zapped as well?

[mzso]

But airplanes for sure. There's just no credible alternative for electrified airplanes other than fuel cells.

Good luck with that. Fuel cells are at best 60% efficient, you have to haul the fuel for them, which I suspect you believe will be liquid hydrogen, which requires a pressure vessel carrying a cryogenic liquid. Fuel cells are not good at generating high currents which would be needed for take off, so you would probably have to carry batteries for sudden loads. I could go on and discuss the tankage volume for your fuel and lots of other technical stuff, but fuel cells are not the solution for electric planes.....

You suspect wrong. Direct carbon fuel cells can go up to the 80-90% range. With decent power density. Hydrogen is not viable. Maybe HWBs sometime.
Takeoff is not a significant part of the whole flight, so the added weight should be modest.

[mzso]

All posts on page 48 (except for Mattchu) relate to something other than F1 engines, why have these not been zapped as well?

Fuel talk is relevant to future PUs.

[Rodak]

You suspect wrong. Direct carbon fuel cells can go up to the 80-90% range. With decent power density. Hydrogen is not viable. Maybe HWBs sometime.
Takeoff is not a significant part of the whole flight, so the added weight should be modest.

Yes, carbon fuel cells are projected to operate in the 80% range. A little bit of reading, however, makes them not sound like the ideal power source for aircraft..... For ground electrical generating stations yes. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5307003515

The direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) employs a process by which carbon is converted to electricity, without the need for combustion or gasification. The operation of the DCFC is investigated with a variety of solid carbons from several sources including some derived from coal. The highly organized carbon form, graphite, is used as the benchmark because of its availability and stability. Another carbon form, which is produced at West Virginia University (WVU), uses different mixtures of solvent extracted carbon ore (SECO) and petroleum coke. The SECO is derived from coal and both this and the petroleum coke are low in ash, sulfur, and volatiles.