Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mercedes To Phase Out Gasoline By 2015

Posted by kdawson on from the what-no-flying-monkeys dept.

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."

28 of 908 comments (clear)

  1. Thank god! by RabidMoose · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Thank god! by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    2. Re:Thank god! by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Thank god! by digitrev · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You missed the key point of my post. I said for urban centers. I was aiming for a system like that for just intracity travel. For intercity, some suburban, and rural transportation, cars are obviously the best option. I just thought that getting people in cities to be less dependent on them (while in the city, when they want to leave, go for it) would save huge amounts of money. I've heard an apocryphal story that New York City has more cars than parking spots.

      To summarize:
      • If you live in a city, such as Ottawa, Toronto, New York, Buffalo, etc... - take a bus, take a subway, take a taxi-like system.
      • If you live near a city, such as a suburb - have park-and-rides to get into the city, make it cost money to get into the city, or have the taxi-like system come out to get you.
      • If you live in a rural area - keep your car.

      My point is not to get rid of cars, I understand that. My point is to give people better alternatives for urban transportation.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    4. Re:Thank god! by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Thank god! by painandgreed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Somehow, I don't think you've actually be in a city that has decent subways or trains before. When you can get a pass that means just hopping on a subway that will go within a few blocks of just about anywhere you'd want to go, they become much more convenient than cars or busses. Especially when considering the parking situation that we have here in Seattle. No more waiting at stop lights or for pedestrians. No looking (or paying) for the parking that you had to circle the block for fifteen minutes just to get. I won't even talk about the cost of my Capitol Hill parking space.

    6. Re:Thank god! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - 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).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Thank god! by benhattman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Nobody wants to be the next GM by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nobody wants to be the next GM by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Re:In other news by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  4. unconfirmed by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well if a blog says it's "well sourced," that's good enough for me!

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  5. and US car companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:and US car companies ? by LandDolphin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We can have them going out of business, now can we? Congress will just have the US tax payers keep them floating like we do the airlines.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  6. The electric car you want is ready now: by RichMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    you want this

    1. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the most uninformed post on an electric car ever. You do realize that the Tesla is faster then the Elise? Plus it was designed with the help of Lotus. But the main flaw in your argument is the assumption that the Tesla NEEDS any gears at all. It has two gears but it could survive with one because there is almost no curve to the torque output so there is no need to shift.

    2. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by frosty_tsm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by Smeagel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Because electric motors get nearly 100% efficiency from the electricity put into them, and power plants get CONSIDERABLY more energy out of fuel than gasoline car engines do (and usually use higher energy fuels than gasoline as well). Compared to $4 a gallon for really inefficient burning, it does cost close to zero dollars.

      On TOP of this, Tesla is looking into distributing solar panels for your roof with the car that would be able to generate about 50 miles a day in energy. So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.

      Also maintenance of an electric motor is significantly cheaper than that of a traditional gas engine in a car, due to significantly less moving parts and not constantly trying to harness mini-explosions for power.

    5. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by Kickersny.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trust me, I'd LOVE it to be true, but there is no magical, mystical free energy source that's gonna make all our woes vanish overnight.

      There is. It's called the sun. (NOT the tabloid newspaper! ;)

      I don't think you read the parent very carefully...

      :)

    6. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by pinkocommie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Acc to Tesla's own figures (with California electricity costs) - it'll cost you 4 cents/mile. In comparison (again using California Gas) $4.6 (45mpg Prius = 10+cents) (27 mpg bmw=17+ cents) (20mpg corvette = 23 cents)

    7. Re:The electric car you want is ready now: by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And those cars are frequently a better solution to the MPG problem, when compared to new hybrid and electric cars. Buying a new car has a huge impact on the environment, as does discarding old cars.

      In order:
      1. Change your driving habits to achieve better mileage out of the car you already own. ($0)
      2. Fix and maintain your existing car to get the best mileage out of it. ($0-500)
      2. Buy a reasonable used car that is more efficient than your current car if your actual fuel savings will pay for the car in a reasonable amount of time. ($500+)
      3. Buy a new car, following the same rules as the above. Unless your current vehicle is a semi that gets 7 MPG on diesel, this probably isn't a realistic cost-effective solution. ($10,000+)

      Now, if you want to buy a car anyway, that's fine, but the fallacy of buying a different car to save tons of money on gas is ridiculous. Unless you're buying a $500 beater, chances are low that you'll really save any money.

      I think most people are pretty short-sighted when it comes to finances and they think that paying less at each fill-up means they're saving money, even though they may have spent $4,000 on another car and are paying more in auto insurance.

      Now, I'll admit that I don't really care about the environmental impact of buying new cars. If you want one, buy one. That just means more cheap used cars for me to play with.

      What amuses me is that people who claim to care about the environment would trade in their old reliable Volvos (blatant stereotype ftw) for a new Prius. The environmental effect of that used car happened a good 5-25+ years ago most likely, and the ongoing effects of driving it (if maintained properly) are negligible compared to the production of a single Prius.

      Buying used cars is environmentally-friendly and an excellent and effective form of recycling that requires no additional energy. YMPGMV.

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
  7. Gasoline by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Informative

    No matter how we choose to generate power in the future, we have very few options for switching to anything other than gasoline for transporting that power.

    Gasoline has a fantastic energy density. A 14 gallon tank of the stuff contains 491.2 kilowatt-hours of energy ($68 in electricity at New York rates), and the gasoline itself only weighs 81 pounds. If you fill up the tank in five minutes, you're transferring power at 7.368 megawatts. Can you imagine what kind of electrical infrastructure you would need to transfer the same power over mere wires?

    About the only alternative I can imagine that would be comparable would be to hot-swap whole huge batteries at gas stations.

    No, I think we'll be using gasoline, or at least a similar liquid fuel, for quite a while.

    1. Re:Gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're forgetting the relative efficiency of the motors.

      Gasoline engines are only about 25% efficient once drivetrain loss is taken into consideration. A 250hp electric motor is close to 95% efficient. With no drivetrain loss if you use lightweight electric motors inside each wheel. So you don't need to store as much energy on the vehicle in the first place.

      ie: Of the 491.2kW/h energy you fuel up with, you only make use of 122.8kW/h in a gasoline car.

      That lower number should be the storage target for an electric vehicle with comparable performance (and cost $17 using your rates). And you get other efficiency boosters almost for free: regenerative braking; freedom to change the shape of the car for efficiency because you don't have to worry about placing the engine above the wheels.

      So you're overestimating the magnitude of the problem - and of the design freedoms that come with a switch to electric operation. It is a problem that will be solved within our lifetimes.

  8. Re:In other news by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the USA only seems to import the luxury cars from Europe. In Spain and Italy, I have seen Mercedes-Benz garbage trucks, which shocked the hell out of my the first time when I was 15. Trips since then, barely noticed.

    But the thing about a lot of Mercedes and BMWs and stuff -- especially the older ones: turbo diesel engines. Can't any diesel engine run biodisel unmodified? That was my understanding.

  9. Its not the fuel that counts by Budenny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Incorrect Conversion by sampson7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong on several levels.

    First, the math:

    491 kilowatt-hours = 0.491 megawatt-hours.

    0.491 MWh over 5 minutes = 5.892 MWs of energy.

    Second, you are ignoring efficiency:

    5.8 MWs of energy is far more than it takes to move a car. Gasoline engines are remarkably ineffecient at converting all that energy into actual power.

    Third, and most importantly:

    "If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!"

    Soure: http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm

    (Okay, so maybe not most importantly, but it's the coolest.)

  11. Re:In other news by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)