Slashdot Mirror
Mercedes To Phase Out Gasoline By 2015
arbitraryaardvark sends in a story a couple of weeks back in Yahoo's Ecogeek blog, reporting that Mercedes will phase out petroleum-powered cars by 2015 (mirror), and notes: "Story is unconfirmed but well sourced." "In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup. Focusing on electric, fuel cell, and biofuels, the company is revving up research in alternative fuel sources and efficiency."
Maybe this precedent (if true) will prompt the other automakers to follow?
GM failed to appreciate the coming change.
Good for Mercedes to be acting ahead of the curve. That is how you build technology and establish markets and presence.
Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity.
Why? Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars, they care about cost and acceptable performance (can I make 70-80 on the freeway, or will I have a top speed of 40). If they can solve the problem of refueling infrastructure and sufficient mileage per refuel, there's no reason why not to go with a non-gas car.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
As this isn't an official announcement, I'm not holding my breath. Sure Mercedes have been at the forefront of vehicle technology for quite some time, but do you really see their entire truck line going non-petroleum in 7 years? Maybe the passenger cars, but not the trucks.
><));>
are still left in the 70's building 5 litre v8 guzzlers with solid rear axles
though looking at GM and Fords financial statements they wont be building much of anything if they dont change, fast.
Until we convert to completely non-combustive and non-fissile energy production, all vehicles will continue to use a certain amount of nuclear, petroleum and/or carbon-based fuels as a source of power.
All that these so-called electric and fuel-cell vehicles do is shift the point source of the pollution and fuel consumption away from the vehicle and onto the electrical grid (and by extension to coal, nuclear, and natural gas generating stations), because charging vehicle batteries and capacitors (or splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, so the hydrogen can be used as a fuel) takes electricity.
Besides, the vehicles will still probably depend on petroleum-based products for lubricants.
How does a car that costs $109,000 address the "cost" concern? Sure, Mercedes vehicles aren't exactly the cheapest, but few of their models go for over 6 figures.
Since this isn't an official announcement coming from MB themselves, I'm going to guess that "phasing out gasoline" and "focusing on biofuels" still means that they will still be running on diesel for their internal combustion engines. Not knowing much about automobile engines, or diesel in particular, I'm going to guess that they'll focus on the lower-sulfur diesel fuel that Europe has mandated (I believe, again, too lazy to look this stuff up), but it doesn't mean "no petroleum products ever"
Not to mention, there's still going to be plenty of oil in that engine, not to mention plenty of petroleum products in the rest of the car.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
Since when has there been a corn supply shortage? There is more corn in storage now than there ever has been before.
Mercedes invented the modern automobile, now they're leading in innovation again. Now if only American automakers would muster up the grit to do the same. Electric motors have been around since 1881 for Pete's sake. Howabout it folks?
It is going to be with an electric car. I'll admit, the electricity distribution system needs a drastic overhaul, but it is for all intents and purposes, in place. Can Mercedes do it? Absolutely. As previously mentioned, Tesla Motors is doing it right now, and that's with a sports car faster than almost all exotics off the line. Toning down performance and allowing the technology to mature will all attribute to a successful conversion.
There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.
It is in this city -- and, I imagine, many others -- but that's due to how expensive it is to park rather than gas.
Of course, it all depends on location, location, location.
"lot of us do care"
With 300 million people in America and 6 billion in the world, "a lot" of people do a lot of things. But the Majority does not care.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.
It is in this city -- and, I imagine, many others -- but that's due to how expensive it is to park rather than gas.
Good call - I've never had to work anywhere where I had to pay for my own parking. I only factored in price-per-mile (and left out all kinds of random overhead - If you can actually eliminate a car from your life, it makes a big difference). Sometimes I forget that not everyone shares my life-style - Shallow, I know.
Cheers.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As usual, people assume that the problem is the fuel. Its not. Its the lifestyle. People are right to say that nothing can replace gasoline for the lifestyle we currently live. That is why the lifestyle is going to change, because there is not going to be affordable gasoline enough to live like that, and there are going to be no substitutes.
Folks, the 20th century is over. It was great while it lasted, suburbs, drive ins, shopping malls, long distance commutes. But its over. What is going to replace it will not be different fuels, electric cars, whatever. What will replace it is commuting by mass transit, living closer to where you work, moving into high density cities, walking to shops. Biking to work in some places. It will be a lot like Europe in the fifties. The suburbs will vanish.
And you won't like it.
This raises one issue as to why Mercedes might actually be the best car company to make this jump. Their cars are luxury ones, not aimed at the Everyman. Their customers would be able to afford the fancy technologies and pay for the investment in infrastructure. Once one company does it and succeeds, others will follow.
I think Lotus actually manufactures much of the car as well as having been integral in its design. On another note, if a small firm can design a car as fast as the Tesla using laptop batteries while achieving a 250 mile range and a 3-4 hour charge time, why can't Honda or Toyota do the same. They could only make it as fast as a civic or camry and under $40,000. I really see no logical engineering problem stopping a major manufacturer from releasing an electric car that could complete performance-wise,range-wise, and cost-wise with the current small cars offered.
How does a car that costs $109,000 address the "cost" concern?
Factor in the gas costs and savings over time.
52 weeks * $100 * 10 years = $52K.
$109-52 = $57k.
What happens if the gas prices double?
Still pricey but a whole lot nicer than a top end SUV.
Well, since Slashdot is now getting its stories from blogs that seem to be finding their 'well sourced' information in UK lowest common denominator tabloid The Sun:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/phil_lanning/article1314732.ece
we might as well link to their story about Jet Packs!:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article744857.ece
Haven't you heard? If it gets warmer it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, if it gets cooler it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, and if it stays exactly the same it's still proof of GLOBAL WARMING!
Worst BBC News Stories
This is the most uninformed post on an electric car ever
Until, perhaps, your own. Indulge me for a minute, please...
Have you ever operated such an automobile? Have you ever considered that a car that did not shift, had no 'VROOM' sound, and wasn't powered by some beastly, powerful motor would just, well, suck?
People LIKE cars. Electric cars will need do more than go fast and cost less to be widely adopted. They need to be macho, sexy, and powerful.
Still not convinced? Look, then, at Harley Davidson adoption vs, say, the Honda Goldwing.
People LIKE their rumbly, loud, inefficient motorized vehicles. They like how they make them FEEL. They don't call it 'Americas love affair with the automobile' for nothing, you know.
Equip one with a vibration mechanism and a loudspeaker, and perhaps you'd see adoption go way up...
People don't want to change their lifestyle and if somebody comes up with a plan where they don't have to, they'll jump on it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Mass Transit? California? Hah. California performs an epic fail when it comes to public transit.
In the Bay Area no one single public transit system will get you around the whole bay. Getting from say Oakland to San Jose requires a number of rather inconvenient transfers. Actually trying to get around San Jose at all on public transit is a mess. BART was supposed to go to San Jose, but never did and trying to get funding to finish it has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Down south, supposedly there's a subway system in LA but I've never met anyone that's actually used it. I think it exists purely so east coast writers can use it in their movie plots. Wikipedia lists its ridership as being 258,710 in a county with 9 million people. (NYC's subway system by comparison has 5mil daily riders). Southern California (and the whole state really) is very car centric, which is partly why the traffic around LA is so messed up.
As for trying to get between the major population centers in California (let's say, The Bay Area, LA, San Diego and Sacramento), your only options pretty much are Amtrak and Greyhound, both of which generally cost more then the cost in gas to just drive to whatever your destination is---assuming you have a car which most Californians do. If you start taking into account multiple passengers then the cost difference really becomes noticeable.
There is one potentially bright spot though. If high speed rail actually could somehow materialize into a reality it could offer a compelling alternative to driving or flying, in reasonable time. A major bond measure is on the November ballot to support funding for building the high speed train network in California. (Not to mention could actually solve the SJ to SF issue--- now if they'd only add a line along the Central Coast.)
I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point for any person with a decent diet.
1) Cars require more resources to build initially
2) Cars require more resources to run per mile (not just in terms of the fossil fuels themselves vs. human energy, but also in terms of the energy required to transport those fossil fuels around the world [hint, it's much greater than the energy used to bring you a peach or two] - 50% of the world's energy is burned just in transporting OTHER energy around the planet).
3) Cars cost more to maintain
4) Exercise is good for you and there are dozens of uncounted, beneficial health effects which will save you money later.
I'm sorry, but this is just pure FUD
If I owned a Tesla, I'd show it off at the lights. Who cares what sound it makes when I'm already going 60 a mere three to four seconds later?
Yeah! And while we're at it, these membrane keyboards are never going to catch on either. People like the satisfying 1-inch key depth of their manual typewriters, the resistance on the key, and the way you have to type just right to avoid having the letter arms collide and get stuck. It's how they feel that counts, not whether they allow you to do your things faster and easier (and quieter)!
Expect insanely fast electric cars to end up in the same technological ghetto as computer keyboards--An interesting toy, perhaps, but they just don't deliver the experience people are looking for.
I was under the impression that there's not enough "waste oil" to meet the kind of demand that a majority-bio-diesel solution would call for. The result would be that much of the stuff getting pumped into tanks would have to come straight from rapeseed oil (for example), and not by way of the deep fryer at the local pub. With the possible exception of cellulosic biofuels, every current method of producing combustible fuel somehow links food production to the fuel tank of your vehicle.
The net result for biofuel, even biodiesel, is that we starve people in developing nations by the millions so we can drive our cars. Let the internal combustion engine die alongside oil reserves. We need something very different, and if food supply is involved anywhere in that chain, it had better be burned in the cells of horses not the tanks of the latest S Class. That's why the focus ought to be on things like electric or mechanical (flywheel) means to powering vehicles.
Mass Transit? California? Hah. California performs an epic fail when it comes to public transit.
As a Californian, I have to angrily retort: "Uhh... well.. yeah, that's pretty much it."
In the Bay Area no one single public transit system will get you around the whole bay. Getting from say Oakland to San Jose requires a number of rather inconvenient transfers. Actually trying to get around San Jose at all on public transit is a mess. BART was supposed to go to San Jose, but never did and trying to get funding to finish it has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Getting from my house in Berkeley to the car rental at the Oakland International Airport (where I had to drop it back off) was a nasty exercise in transfers, from a cab to BART, BART to the airport, board a slow bus that eventually takes you to the car rental.. my God, what a pain. And every time someone suggests something reasonable, like, say, extending BART to San Jose, it gets tied up by regional transportation buslines who don't like the "big guys" coming in and taking their business (not kidding.. Santa Clara VTA lobbied nicely against the SJ extension).
Want to get from Berkeley to Windsor, Ca where my mom lives? The last time I tried it it involved taking a BART train to San Francisco, then Golden Gate Transit up to Santa Rosa, then a bus from Santa Rosa to Windsor. Total travel time? 3.5 hours. Travel time if I drive? 55 minutes, or 1.5 hours if 101N traffic is particularly ghastly.
The last time I tried to use Amtrak (long ago), a round-trip ticket between Berkeley and Davis (near Sacramento) involved a train and a bus (despite there being an Amtrak train station in Davis and Berkeley) and cost around $50. The last time I had a 6 hour delay on Amtrak was the last time I rode on Amtrak.
Down south, supposedly there's a subway system in LA but I've never met anyone that's actually used it. I think it exists purely so east coast writers can use it in their movie plots.
And for 24, which is usually set in LA.
When I took a trip to London and traveled around on the Tube... man, how refreshing that was.
This is the most uninformed post about a car enthusiast ever. You do realize that to some people the act of driving is more than just speed? The main flaw in your argument is the assumption that the OP doesn't just PREFER to shift their own gears as part of that experience. Sure the OP could make do with one or two gears, but the experience just wouldn't be as authentic.
Edit: Interestingly enough the captcha I got for this was "linkages"
Where are you going to find a mechanic to service your Tesla's electric motor, or the batteries?
Unless your mechanic rebuilds alternators from scratch, he'll be able to do comparable maintenance on a Tesla Roadster. (And don't even try to say your mechanic does more than clean, test, and replace your battery.)
Diagnose the broken part, repair if practical, replace if not. Your mechanic will figure it out.
You have an amazing talent, being able to insightfully tell exactly what people want from a car. You should be in marketing.
Oh wait, you probably are.
So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.
If you travel less than 50 miles a day you should look into buying a bicycle.
I think GM made the right decision to stop the EV1. Let's think about this - GM spent about $1.5B to build 1500 cars. That's $1M/car. This is back in the 90's, when a million dollars was a lot of money. They leased them for 2 years at ~$700/mo. That's a loss leader. They were banking on a leap in battery technology which never happened.
And no - nickel metal hydride batteries would not last the life of the car. Typically, NiMH have (best case) 1000 recharge cycles before they are pretty useless. I wouldn't want to depend on them to get me home the last few hundred cycles. The Prius' battery pack costs about $8k to replace. That's after 11 years of improvements in battery technology, and that battery will only move the car a few miles - much smaller battery capacity than the EV1. Also, the Prius only uses about 5 or 10% of the range of the battery (it is not fully charged or discharged in normal driving) to maximize battery life.
So you're left with a car with a very expensive battery pack (let's guess north of $20k) which needs to be replaced every 3-5 years. You paid a million dollars per car. Economies of scale can build the car for less. But that doesn't solve the battery problem. The breakthrough that GM was counting on in battery technology failed to materialize. The requirement of selling a percentage of zero-emission-vehicles in California began to show signs of weakness. What do you do - ask lessees to pay the true cost of >$20k for a new battery when they are needed in a few years? Do you continue to subsidize the car by selling batteries for less than you pay for them -- and figure out a way to stop people from buying the batteries and selling them for a profit? Where was the future in this car? There was no way for GM to even break even on it.
I agree that GM should have continued working on their EV line - maybe building a dozen prototypes a year, lending vehicles to magazine editors and car shows, but the battery issue was the killer.
They aren't a great option when you have hills or inclement weather, and if you don't have a shower at work. It's also not very safe in many places - which is the reason I avoid a motorcycle.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
True. It won't happen overnight. You'll have to wait until dawn.
Well, how about you buy an electric car and install some goddamn speakers to make noise for you?
They don't call it 'Americas love affair with the automobile' for nothing, you know.
I am an American, and I for one am disgusted that many of us are willing to trade the future for some nice gold bars.
In a sports car? Yes.
Also, I'm talking about an Elise... it's a small two door Lotus, not a Ford Mustang.
This is nothing more than "That's the way they've always been. It's what I grew up with. Everything else is sacrilege." If the damn thing can press me back in my seat and leave that punk in the Mustang with his jaw hanging down then I could care less what it sounds like. These things are damn near silent? Good. You can get yer noise from a decent stereo. I gather a close gated 6-speed to authoritatively bang up and down is quite the man-toy. It is pointless in a vehicle with a torque curve that is very very flat and very very wide. I'll allow that it may take too long to recharge the thing after flogging it around 50 or 60 miles of curvy road. I'm not saying it's without flaws but not mimicking a gasoline powered vehicle to every last detail isn't one of them. I think gobs of quiet buttery smooth power could be quite fun in it's own right.
I've even heard that some CVT equipped cars have synthetic bumpy shifts due to untrained consumers. Gee, now what was the point of a CVT again? Let's have unnecessary wear and tear and both power and economy loss because a 21st century vehicle doesn't shift like a '72 Dodge. Sheesh!
no no no! It's all local co-op, no pesky hydrocarbons involved there. Don't you know, energy usage, transportation and civilization are bad, bad, bad and we should all take this young lad as our example!
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Yes, getting up hours earlier, probably before sunrise, riding for 5 times as long through any weather from sleet to baking sun, up and down hills, in your suit with your briefcase, and arriving worn out and sweating, possibly soaked in rain or covered in dust is a great way to start your day at work.
Personally I'll retain my brain and use my bike for trips of under 5 miles. For longer trips, try the bus.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Oddly enough, that fact is actually the best documented part of what I said. See https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg for more. Over 50% of energy is simply lost (heat, transportation, and high voltage requirements all play in) during the generation and transportation of energy.
However, it does look like I mistated this. Turns out that over 50% of energy is lost in generation, transmission, and distribution (and not just in transmission and distribution alone). I think the point still stands though
No, I don't. But I do think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Tesla is talking of distributing *solar panels for your house* to use to charge the car, not solar panels for the roof of their *convertible* which you seem to be suggesting.
It seems no electric car is truly available now. Everybody is talking about concept cars, limited production runs, cars that are only available in limited geographic areas and vehicles available to fleets only, and they are promised for 2010. For the Tesla, which is ahead of most, even if you have the 100 K$ burning a hole in your pocket, you better hope you are already on the waiting list, and located in California, or your chances are slim-to-none of getting one. I'm hoping Mercedes will make the electric version of the smart car available in the US. Eventually. Sigh.
- Looking for an Electric Car Before the Gas Price Surge
Computers obey me.
You could better compare the Mercedes in Europe to the Buick in the USA. Almost everybody can buy one certified pre-owned, middle-class can buy it brand new and it gives you the status symbol that you are a little higher on the income ladder, a little more refined than the rest.
Ford's are and have been for the last few years cheap pieces of junk that barely last until the last payment is complete. Too bad Volvo has been taken over by Ford, their latest models have been degrading in both quality and innovativeness. In Europe you would get a Skoda (which is currently owned by VW), a second grade brand which the owner apparently uses to recycle the less acceptable parts for the premium VW brand QA.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
OT: What is a good online British paper for your American cousins to read? From our side, the BBC does some great reporting. As a result, we kind of give any British paper more credit than perhaps its due.
"It's one thing to talk about the poetry of machines. Quite another to listen to it for yourself."
Though I wouldn't be surprised if it was 80mph for 30 miles or 30mph for 100 miles...
The real question is: "What's its range under normal motorway/town driving?"
What is a good online British paper for your American cousins to read?
The Guardian is better than most, especially for science and tech.
"and usually use higher energy fuels than gasoline as well"
I call this bullshit. Could you please elaborate, and give us an example?
With around 10kWh/l for gasoline, there's not so many "higher energy fuels" except uranium.
Even $50/gallon would still be cheap for so big an energy density. 4$/gallon is virtually free, and only takes into account extraction/distribution costs, not the real energy value of gasoline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
BBC News (or the television based reporting at least) has become quite tabloidy in my opinion. Too many stories relating to celebtities. The presenters also appear to lack depth of knowledge on current affairs. Channel 4 news is much better, although John Snow doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be.