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."

Comments

Thank god!

[RabidMoose]

Maybe this precedent (if true) will prompt the other automakers to follow?

Re:Thank god!

[digitrev]

Only if the technologies aren't locked up and hidden away by patents. The fact is, we either need a better infrastructure (so electric cars are possible), or a reasonable and standard selection of fuels. If the average consumer has to think too hard about which fuel his car uses, he won't be getting that car. Of course, the real solution is to get urban centers off of a car based infrastructure, and go to a different system, such as good subway or bus system, coupled with a public taxi type system, as in Hominids , by Robert J. Sawyer.

Re:Thank god!

[eln]

If electric cars can be made to charge from ordinary outlets, isn't the infrastructure already there? I suppose the trick would be to get the cars to charge fast enough and/or to last long enough on one charge that you don't have to stop every 4 hours to charge the car for 12 hours at a time, but assuming we can solve that, replacing all those gas pumps at fuel stations with extra outlets shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Basically, I think electric cars are the only real way to handle this stuff long term, but battery technology has to get better. Today's batteries are too heavy and don't last long enough.

I think better public transit is a good step, but I don't think you can put the private vehicle genie back in the bottle at this stage. People are accustomed to private transport, and the more efficient and environmentally friendly we can make that private transport the better.

Re:Thank god!

[AuMatar]

Never going to happen. Nothing will ever beat the private car for convenience. Its right there, whenever you want it. Its fast, it can be used by almost anyone, regardless of physical health. No wait times to use it, no sharing it with the smelly unbathed guy, the psycho homeless person, or the screaming infant. No stops along the way. And it can be used for trips of any length, to any location, without being forced to walk a mile from a bus stop to the destination. And depending on where you're driving, it can be quite pleasant- driving in the mountains with the top down is *fun*. I've never had a fun bus ride.

On top of that- cars, to a large portion of the population, are freedom. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Freedom to live where you want. Freedom to just say "fuck it" one day and go on a road trip. Freedom from the clock- I don't have to leave the bar with my friends to make that last 10:30 pm bus, I can stay til closing time (assume I'm sober for this one). There is no substitute for this.

The people will never give up their cars. Don't bother trying to make us- we won't. We'll use every last drop of gasoline first. Find a better way to power them instead, they will never go away.

Re:Thank god!

[lymond01]

Wish I had some mod points. The car offers too much freedom to be done away with entirely. But we can design better cities and public transportation to make it so you don't need or want to use it as much.

The town I live in is made up almost entirely of 4 lane roads (or it feels like it) -- I'd never bike there for fear of getting squish (just like grape), everything is 2 miles away from anything else, etc. I'd trade my two car garage and 1000 sq foot back yard for a decent apartment with a view if I could walk to the local wine, cheese, and bread stores, to the large park with rowboats and bike trails...heck, even throw in a movie theatre in the apartment building.

The American Dream, last I checked, isn't suburban hell...it's raising a family in a secure, healthy environment. Planned right, even smaller towns can avoid the sprawl. But it takes planning, and buy-in from developers of corporations as well as condos.

Re:Thank god!

[AuMatar]

Automated toll roads won't happen either. Any city council who tried to push that stuff through would quickly find himself out of a job. You'd end up pissing off

*All the business owners downtown
*All the people who live downtown
*All the people who work downtown
*All the people who go downtown semi-regularly

The only people you'd make happy are
*The people who go downtown once in a long while. And maybe not even them.

Despite what some ultra left Sierra Club people want, that kind of tolling isn't going to fly anywhere in the US. It works in Europe only because downtown infrastructures predate the car and they have to restrict the number of cars going into the area. There's no such excuse for any American city.

Re:Thank god!

[AuMatar]

Unless you have a subway system that will pick me up less than a block from where I am (no matter where I am), drop me off less than a block from where I want to go, and do so with a no more than 5 minute wait for said subway, it just won't replace the car. Its the transportation form of the last mile problem. But unlike in networking, here it is solved- the car.

Re:Thank god!

[ceoyoyo]

I don't like swapping my propane tank because I have a fairly new one. I really don't think I'd like to swap my nice new $5000 battery pack for whatever the last guy left at the station.

Re:Thank god!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I've seen it proposed many times, here's the solution:

You pull into a gas station and they swap out your battery for a completely charged one.

You drive away and they recharge the battery.

Problem solved.

Your powers of problem solving are amazing! You've just singlehandedly solved the entire electric car/battery issue by typing a few words into your browser!

Of course, you gloss over the "few issues to be worked out" as if they weren't the biggest, most difficult, impractical problems confounding your whole idea, such as:

  - How would "refilling stations" store the massive number of batteries needed to support such rapid changeout procedures?

  - How would these stations charge the batteries quickly enough for a fast turnaround?

  - Batteries -- especially Li-Ion ones -- begin to degrade as soon as they're manufactured, usually losing 40% or more of their charge capacity in 18-24 months. How is a station going to deal with customers dropping off old battery packs and picking up new ones?

  - How is the station going to physically handle the battery packs? Lead-acid cells are cheap and sturdy but heavy as...well, lead. Not to mention the environmental concerns.

  - Where is the national grid going to get the power to charge all these wonderfully swappable packs?

These are not trivial issues. In fact, they're the most non-trivial piece of the whole let's-all-plug-in-our-cars-and-feel-warm-and-fuzzy-about-being-green hysteria. And these are just the few I can come up with in five minutes are less.

There are many more reasons why this is a silly idea that will do little or nothing to help the environment. It may, in fact, actually harm the environment if we (meaning the U.S.) turn to our most abundant power-producing resource (coal) to provide the needed power.

I'd be in favor of this idea if we'd get our heads out of the sand about nuclear power, but the tree huggers seem quite intent on keeping that option off the table.

Re:Thank god!

[Red Flayer]

- How would "refilling stations" store the massive number of batteries needed to support such rapid changeout procedures?

The same way they store liquid fuel -- in a storage container designed for the purpose.

How would these stations charge the batteries quickly enough for a fast turnaround?

That's a question of inventory on hand. See my answer to your first objection.

Batteries -- especially Li-Ion ones -- begin to degrade as soon as they're manufactured, usually losing 40% or more of their charge capacity in 18-24 months. How is a station going to deal with customers dropping off old battery packs and picking up new ones?

By factoring in the replacement cost into their pricing, either on a blanket basis, or by assessing a surcharge based upon battery age.

How is the station going to physically handle the battery packs? Lead-acid cells are cheap and sturdy but heavy as...well, lead. Not to mention the environmental concerns.

Pneumatic lifts? Hydraulic lifts? There is plenty of mechanical assistance available for lifting heavy objects. As for environmental concerns, how do garages cope with the same wrt engine coolant, petrol, motor oil, transmission fluid, etc?

It may, in fact, actually harm the environment if we (meaning the U.S.) turn to our most abundant power-producing resource (coal) to provide the needed power.

Who says we need to use coal? Maybe as a stop-gap, but nuclear and renewables are good options in the future. Especially if we reduce our wasteful need for so many vehicles. I know you mention the nuke-blockers, but most of the hard-core anti-nuke reactionaries are getting old, and I firmly believe that a massive information campaign could be successful in swaying the enough people.

In short, every problem has a solution, and while the economics need to be worked out, it sure seems to me that you're an obstructionist and would rather look at the problems and say, "Why bother?" than look at the problems and say "How can that be solved?".

I personally believe that electric cars are part of the solution in the long run, but in the short-to-medium term, we've got to work on alternative fuels that can make use of the existing infrastructure (with modifications).

Re:Thank god!

[HockeyPuck]

why do you assume that we all want to live in high rise apartment buildings in large cities? Can a city of 100k people support a subway system? Doubt. Maybe the county of surrounding towns can support the bus system, but surely the bus system won't be going into every neighborhood.

Also, I and many other people on this planet live in the suburbs. I like having a lawn, not hearing heavy-footed neighbors upstairs walking around. I like grilling out in the backyard on a warm summer night. Going up to a 'rooftop garden' isn't even close to it, as how many apartments can invite their X closest friends up there?

Sure, I guess I could load up a couple of carts with a bbq, charcoal and coolers of food/beer and walk a few blocks, get on the subway with this stuff and take that to a park, whereby if I forgot something, I'm truly f-cked, b/c I can't run back into the house and get the g-ddamn ice.

I don't want to have to go to special cordoned off area of the city just to see grass, trees, birds and squirrels. I actually like putting up a bird feeder and seeing what shows up. Or planting a small tree when my son was born, or putting up a basketball hoop in the driveway, instead of having him walk down to the same park that 5000 other kids are trying to use.

You may love living in the city, but I'll give up my lawnmower when you take it from my cold dead hands.

Re:Thank god!

[benhattman]

OH? Like how I can always park within 1 block of my destination, regardless of how popular it is?

Get real. In any dense city, you're parking and walking anyways.

Re:Thank god!

[xaxa]

Unless you have a subway system that will pick me up less than a block from where I am (no matter where I am), drop me off less than a block from where I want to go, and do so with a no more than 5 minute wait for said subway, it just won't replace the car. Its the transportation form of the last mile problem. But unlike in networking, here it is solved- the car.

Any Americans wondering why they have a reputation for being lazy should read the quoted comment.

Nobody wants to be the next GM

[RichMan]

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.

Re:Nobody wants to be the next GM

[John Hasler]

Don't get too excited. It will be difficult to make a "biofuel" engine that won't run just fine on petroleum. And they won't try. As soon as they have biofuel capability across their product lines they will declare themselves "green" regardless of what the customers are actually putting in the tanks.

Re:In other news

[AuMatar]

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'll wait

[fishybell]

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.

and US car companies ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[eln]

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.

phasing out "gasoline" is not phasing out "diesel"

[holden caufield]

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.

Re:Shifting Focus...

[realmolo]

"Until we convert to completely non-combustive and non-fissile energy production..."

Why would we phase out fissile energy? We should be using that for everything. Nuclear power is the best thing we have.

"Besides, the vehicles will still probably depend on petroleum-based products for lubricants."

Not so much, actually. If you have a 100% electrically-powered car, you simply put an electric motor on every wheel. Electric motors don't need much lubrication.

If it is going to happen....

[trickno]

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.

Re:In other news

[LandDolphin]

"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.

Re:In other news

[gnick]

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.

Its not the fuel that counts

[Budenny]

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.

Re:Its not the fuel that counts

[tekrat]

Anyone who cares about what they pay at the pump cannot vote Democratic (and have a leg to stand on when prices go up even faster) in the next election if they want the price to come down
-----

That's an interesting statement when you consider it was the insane policies of the Republicans that got us into this mess in the first place.

If wacko, insane, bumbling moron GWB hadn't destablized the entire mideast with his WMD-hunt (when Saddam had been a known, contained, and closely monitored element), then we'd still only be paying $1.50 per gallon at most. But, because of a few greedy individuals, we are now shoveling hundreds of billions into the pockets of a few and we've created the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

So, go on, spout on about how the democrats are to blame for everything. In the meantime, GWB will continue to lose popularity, and will likely be considered "Worst President in American History". Just remember the party he came from -- the party that represents wealthy, greedy, self-centered, fat white people who couldn't give a shit about the rest of the world.

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[frosty_tsm]

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.

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[RDW]

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

Re:Shifting Focus...

[jhfry]

He is saying that current fission, not fusion, is still the best source of energy we have. I agree. However I stipulate that the "waste" must be used to create electricity as well!

Through transmutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation) much of the "waste" of current reactors (30 years old here in the US) can be further used to create electricty. And the result is less, and less dangerous, waste.

There are valid reasons to fear nuclear, however the benifits outweigh the results by billions of tons of carbon emissions. If we moved to a purely nuclear society, the innovations made in the long term would virtually eliminate the risks... making electrical power generation a truly clean enterprise... especially compared to current methods!

I would take a nuclear plant in my back yard before another coal one within 100 miles!

You underestimate the ingenuity of lazy people...

[PRMan]

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.

Re:In other news

[NoodleSlayer]

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.)

Re:In other news

[UltraAyla]

it still consumes more resources to walk/bike than it does to drive - Do the math.

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.

There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but this is just pure FUD

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[Anpheus]

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?

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[PsyckBoy]

True. It won't happen overnight. You'll have to wait until dawn.

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[Smeagel]

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.

Re:The electric car you want is ready now: NOT

[AJ Mexico]

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

Re:Yes it is - take a look at this:

[TheThiefMaster]

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?"

Re:The electric car you want is ready now:

[sticky_charris]

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.