F1 engines feel like they’ve been at a crossroads for some time now. The current engines used are remarkably efficient. But they’re also expensive, heavy and not especially popular. Many fans want a return to the old days of louder and lighter engines powered by combustible fuel. Meanwhile there are pressures for F1 to remain at the forefront of technological development, push green solutions, remain road relevant, attract new suppliers and also cut costs. Whilst the changes for 2026 are generally seen as a step in the right direction, the fact is that several of these goals contradict each other. So why not think out of the box? Could a nuclear F1 car ever work? You might think that the idea is preposterous… and you’d be right. But it’s an interesting idea to explore, at least theoretically.
- What Vehicles Are Currently Nuclear Powered?
- The Advantages Of A Nuclear Powered F1 Engine
- The Disadvantages Of A Nuclear Powered F1 Engine
- Other Ideas For Nuclear F1 Cars
- Summary
What Vehicles Are Currently Nuclear Powered?
Let’s start by looking at what vehicles are currently nuclear powered and why. There are two types of vehicles: submarines and satellites/space probes.
Nuclear submarine
A nuclear submarine is one is powered by a nuclear reactor. The reactor will boil water, which leads to pressurised steam turning a turbine to generate electricity via a generator. This is the same way a nuclear power plant works. (The process is also similar to a coal or gas power plant too with the distinction of having a different method of generating heat). A nuclear submarine may or not have a diesel engine to complement it.
Note that the term “nuclear submarine” refers solely to the method of power generation, and does not imply that the submarine has nuclear weapons on board.
What advantages does a nuclear submarine have?
The first is that a nuclear submarine can stay at sea for longer. Perhaps more importantly, a nuclear sub can spend months at a time underwater. (With considerations such as food and human conditions being the main factor on when to surface.) By comparison, diesel submarines need to surface comparatively regularly to provide oxygen for the process of combustion. The infamous U-Boats of WW1 and WW2 spent almost all of their time above water, only submerging for around a day at a time. This fact may not relevant to F1 directly, but the idea of a long lasting fuel may be.
A nuclear sub is also significantly faster, due to the large amount of power a nuclear reactor can generate. This has all sorts of advantages at sea, such as keeping pace with other ships. The large power output is an advantage that clearly applies to F1.
Nuclear Space Probe
Like submarines, space probes also need something with an extremely long life-span, due to the fact that refueling is a non-option. However, weight is also extremely important for space travel, and the equipment must be able to survive the harsh conditions of space. This makes full nuclear reactors impractical due to their weight, size and moving parts. The probes therefore typically use a completely different system called a nuclear battery. (Also known as a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator.) This use temperature differences caused by nuclear decays to induce a current. As with a nuclear reactors, they have the advantage of being able to store far more energy than an F1 car would get through in a race. They also have the advantage of being light. (For many probes they are just a dozen or so kg.)
However, most batteries have an output of just a few dozen Watts (enough to power a standard lightbulb). So far no nuclear battery has been built that could even theoretically provide enough power an F1 car, although that doesn’t necessarily mean the idea is impossible.
As a side note, nuclear batteries have some uses in non-vehicles that exist in remote regions of the Earth (such as polar regions). Their long life-span and lack of maintenance make them attractive. However, these advantages do not really apply to F1.
Nuclear Cars?
From the above cases we can see that submarines and space probes have specific requirements that nuclear power can be better than other resources. So has anyone ever built a nuclear powered car?
The short answer is, no. However, there have been attempts to produce a concept model. The Ford Nucleon from the 1950s is a case in point. The idea was to explore the concept, with a view that the significant issues will be overcome in the future.
The idea has been revisited semi-regularly by car companies. For example, in 2009 Cadillac proposed a Thorium powered car, although there was again no serious attempt at building or selling it.
The Advantages Of A Nuclear Powered F1 Engine
So if no-one has ever built a nuclear powered car, would the idea have any advantages at all in F1? Of course!
Firstly, it would certainly be at the forefront of technology. Nuclear power has also proven to be incredibly safe despite its reputation. The method of energy generation is also carbon neutral. These are all important properties that for an F1 engine.
Nuclear fuel is also incredibly energy dense. One gram or Uranium has more energy than an entire tonne of gasoline. To put it another way, an F1 car with 1kg (2lbs) of Uranium on board has enough energy to complete every single Grand Prix since the inception of F1. (Plus every Sprint Race, Qualifying, Practice Sessions and Testing…) Of course, delivering on this power potential is tricky, and a typical reactor requires much more fuel to reach the critical mass required for a chain reaction.
Finally, F1 engines are known for their power, which is certainly something that nuclear would be able to provide!
The Disadvantages Of A Nuclear Powered F1 Engine
The Cost Of A Nuclear F1 Engine
One reason that nuclear power is mostly restricted to just a handful of industries is the extremely large cost involved in the designing and building process. Many nuclear powered devices are bespoke, which raises costs further. However, in recent years there has been growing investment into small-medium sized nuclear reactors. These would be significantly cheaper due to their smaller size and the ability to build several from the same design.
This is exactly what F1 would need: a small reactor that it could buy in bulk. Currently, each manufacturer designing, building and maintaining their engine is an integral part of F1 which would fall by the way-side. However, the insanely high costs would surely force a standardised nuclear powered engine for every team.
Ideas for a standard engine floated before but axed after being rejected by several engine makers. The good news is that Mercedes, Honda, Porsche, Audi and probably Ferrari too would be forced out of F1 anyway, as they probably have little to no interest or knowledge of building nuclear reactors.
Despite these cost cutting measures, the project would still likely be horrifically expensive, and it’s not clear who would be able to afford it given the likely lack of support from the current engine makers and teams.
The Mass Of A Nuclear F1 Engine
Nuclear batteries may be light, but the power of those produced thus far is insufficient for F1. What about a full nuclear reactor? Unfortunately, they require a critical mass of fissionable material to maintain a chain reaction. For pure Uranium, this is around 50kg. This means that whilst the amount of uranium actually being used may be tiny, a relatively high mass is still needed to ensure a reaction is constantly taking place. This is before the weight of the generator, motor and radioactive shielding is added, meaning even a “small” nuclear engine will be very large and heavy by F1 standards.
However, an F1 car currently starts a race with 110kg of fuel on board, which won’t be required. A proposed thorium based nuclear engine would actually be lighter than a current F1 engine + fuel, but its power output would only be around 1/3 of a current F1 engine. However, a lot more nuclear power can be delivered for just a little more weight, and there’s no reason that a nuclear F1 car couldn’t have a very impressive power-weight ratio.
Nuclear reactors produce nuclear waste, and by logically the driver would have to be sat close to this. This is a relatively simple problem to solve with shielding. Unfortunately amount of (very heavy) shielding required would be quite significant. (The exact amount requires careful risk assessment of how long the driver is likely to be exposed for.)
As previously mentioned, the power-weight ratio of a nuclear F1 car could still be highly competitive, even with this shielding. However, current F1 cars also exceed in areas such as cornering and braking. A nuclear powered F1 car would probably handle more like a truck than a racing car, and an impressive power output and top speed would not make up the deficit.
Safety Of A Nuclear F1 Engine
There’s also the issue of safety. Historically, nuclear power is probably the safest way of making energy However, making a nuclear reactor in a moving vehicle is a completely different kettle of fish.
With regards to crashes, there are some advantages. The inferno that engulfed Romain Grosjean’s car after his horrific crash in 2020 would be impossible without tens of kilos of combustible material onboard, and concerns about large electrical batteries causing fires would also ease.
However, any damage to the shielding or reactor itself during a crash would lead to potential nuclear leaks, and would not only be dangerous, but a PR disaster for the sport. Could it ever be guaranteed that the nuclear material would be safe after a crash? Not really. Whilst there would be ways to make sure that the cars were reasonably safe, the clearest way of doing this is by adding even more shielding. This would increase the mass and decrease the cornering and braking capabilities of the car further.
Taken all together there is no reason why a nuclear powered car could not be made at a safety level comparative to that of combustion engine or electric cars. However, they’d have to be huge compromises made in the weight and design of the car to achieve this.
Other Factors
There are all sorts of other problems too. Nuclear power plants are notoriously behind schedule in opening, and a fundamentally untested concept such as this would not be able to have a reliable completion date. The concept is also likely to be a turn-off for many sponsors, given how many people have strong opinions on nuclear fuel.
There’s also the issue of transporting nuclear material all across the world, into and out of many politically diverse countries. Would it be realistically possible to guarantee the security of the material itself, and prevent any attempts by terrorists or bad actors to take nuclear fuel?
A full nuclear reactor would also generate vast amounts of heat. Disposing of excess heat would be a significant challenge, given F1 cars have enough cooling problems as it is. Finally (and perhaps most importantly in the eyes of some F1 fans), a nuclear engine wouldn’t recreate the classic sound of V10 or even V12 engines from the past. And if it’s not going to do that, then what’s the point of an F1 engine anyway?
Other Ideas For Nuclear F1 Cars
Indirect Nuclear Power
What about powering cars using energy derived from nuclear power? This is 100% possible. In France, around 2/3rds of electricity is derived from nuclear power. This means that electric cars charged in France are already fundamentally nuclear powered.
The dream of a fully electric F1 car are still many years away (if it is possible at all). However, synthetic fuels is something that F1 is seriously looking into, and these also require significant amounts of energy to produce. (For hopefully obvious political reasons, this power source will also need to be carbon neutral.) However, there’s no obvious reason why nuclear power would be used specifically over other carbon neutral energy sources.
Driverless Cars
Some of the biggest issues of a nuclear powered F1 car are to do with keeping the driver safe. A driverless car would require far less shielding, whilst also shedding a good 70kg from the cars weight. In this case, there’s no reason why a much smaller, nimbler nuclear powered driverless car shouldn’t be an option. In this case, a nuclear battery seems the more viable choice, due to its lower weight and size. Of course a driverless car is not really an F1 car, but it does mean that nuclear power could at least theoretically have a place in motorsport.
Even in this case, there are still issues to do with safety and cost, along with the fact that it’s unclear why you would want a nuclear powered driverless car. The main point of driverless car racing series appears to be to show the real world applications, and nuclear power would be a very expensive distraction from that. It’d still be cool to see though.
Summary
Nuclear Powered Submarines/Space Probes:
- Are very expensive
- Last a long time without refuelling/recharging
- Exist in extreme conditions (in space, artic regions and underwater)
Out of these, an F1 car arguably ticks the first two boxes (although the money available is probably insufficient to develop a nuclear engine). However, the ease of access to an F1 car means that one of nuclear power’s great strengths is irrelevant.
Advantages of a nuclear F1 engine:
- A potentially competitive power-weight ratio, even accounting for shielding
- Carbon neutral power source
- Cutting edge
- Able to prevent infernos associated with carrying large amounts of fuel/heavy batteries
- Cool as hell (in my humble opinion)
Disadvantages of a nuclear F1 engine:
- The cars would be severely overweight due to vast amounts of heavy shielding required. This would make braking and turning painfully slow.
- It would be difficult to make the cars safe for drivers due to their high speeds and heavy weights.
- Questions over radioactive leakage (particularly during crashes) would remain.
- Difficult to transport nuclear material around the world safely.
- The engine would be horrifically expensive, and current teams would likely pull out.
- It would probably a PR and sponsorship nightmare and would not be particularly road relevant.
Overall, a nuclear powered F1 car is, unsurprisingly, wildly impractical.
–
