
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.
The German car company has a few new powertrains in the line-up that European journalists have had the opportunity to test out in their facility in
Anyway, Mercedes is looking into electric vehicles, both battery powered and fuel cell powered. Not only are models in development, but we’ve also seen the company making steps towards their zero petroleum goal right now, from better cabs in London to Li-Ion battery improvements. The company also has about 100 Smart electric cars undergoing testing in
While car models may be able to run on fuels other than gasoline or diesel, we have yet to find a method of both running and producing vehicles entirely free of fossil fuels. I’m waiting for a mainstream car line that creates renewable fuel-powered, clean running vehicles made out of 100% recycled materials and manufactured in plants run on 100% renewable, clean power…Will I even be alive when that finally happens? I have hope.
Via AutoblogGreen, The Sun; Photo Leonid Mamchenkov

written by Ollie, June 26, 2008
written by Thaddeus van der Wienerkrinkel, June 26, 2008
written by Rafucxsh, June 26, 2008
I'm waiting to see which company comes out with mainstream vehicle first. It'll change the company's image.
written by kballs, June 26, 2008
written by lballs, June 26, 2008
ditch, as in, no more.
written by x, June 27, 2008
Perhaps other automobile companies are hedging their bets on a fuel power revolution.
This is so exciting, soon we will not be at the mercy of the oil producing nations. It will be a wonderment to see how this changes the geopolitical landscape, particularly in the mideast!
written by Car l, June 27, 2008
written by Me, June 27, 2008
written by jeremy, June 27, 2008
The closest this article gets is stating the $14 billion invested by 2014. Except it gets that wrong, it's actually $14 MILLION, not billion. Or put another way, reality is 0.1% of what's stated.
But hey, at least you made it on Digg, right?
written by jeremy, June 27, 2008
written by Kelly, June 27, 2008
written by EdG, June 27, 2008
written by Oliver, June 27, 2008
written by Enrique, June 27, 2008
With a 500 miles battery and govertnment provdiding free re-charges from solar stations, the game is over.
written by JImmyDoDopp, June 27, 2008
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
written by Mike D, June 27, 2008
written by Kny, June 27, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)
I'm sure it's not a big jump, and might be much less of an environmental bonus initially, but the signal is a strong one, and oil-based nations might be starting to worry.
Also, I think only americans have been able to not worry about gas prices for the last 20 years. For most of Europe, the mpg-rating has been a major selling point for decades.
written by EcoGeek, June 27, 2008
The source article states: "The company have already spent £2million on their new long-term Sustainable Mobility plan and are set to invest a further £7billion before 2014."
Million. With an M. For the first amount. And Billion. With a B. For the second amount.
written by DSpider, June 27, 2008
written by tesla, June 27, 2008
written by Felicia, June 27, 2008
written by ...>>, June 27, 2008
Uh huh. So while we continue to grow crops strictly to get around town... what is it, precisely, that we're going to be able to afford to eat?
written by Erik, June 27, 2008
But what would an eco-entrepreneur like me know, right? Unless we only ride around on bikes and grow our own organic hemp clothing, it must be greenwashing. Oi.
written by a, June 27, 2008
"Mercedes Might Cut Petroleum Requirement Out of Lineup"
Nowhere does it say anthing about abandoning petrol, only that vehicles CAN run on other fuels, which you will not be able to easily get anywhere in mass quantities.
Another red flag is the fact that its Mercedes announcing this. Lets see, you have a luxury car company who, for its entire life, couldn't give a rats ass about efficiency, gas usage, and recycling suddenly switch to not using any gas? Not likely.
Mercedes is the appitomy of making gas guzzling, luxury at any cost, screw the environment cars. Their consumers could car less about saving money on gas, who the hell needs to save money on gas if you are wasting 50-100k on a car? This is total BS.
written by Jeremy, June 27, 2008
written by the apocalypse is near, June 27, 2008
written by kballs, June 28, 2008
As many other have said on here, it doesn't say anywhere that Mercedes is going to build cars that won't run on petrol fuels, just that they are investing in alternatives and alternative fuel capable vehicles. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for speculation on either side, so all are welcome to discuss their prediction and the reasons why.
And about the complaints that I said E85 is greenwashing... IT IS. Unless you live in corn country. And even then it still is. You CAN'T BUY E85 outside of corn country. And if you can buy it in your town, great, be happy to be burning a fuel that is vastly increasing pesticide, fertilizer, and water use to the point of straining the mid-west aquifers, and destroying the fish in the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico with algae blooms from fertilizer runoff. The reality right now is 95% of flex-fuel vehicles never burn a drop more ethanol than their non-flex-fuel counterparts BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUY IT ANYWHERE.
written by Tim, June 28, 2008
written by John, June 28, 2008
Ethanol is a friggin' JOKE, a payoff to Iowa corn jerkoffs. It's energy-negative and more polluting that petro fuels.
Algae biodiesel is thew way to go. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/index.html
written by truthynesslover, June 28, 2008
written by DDP, June 28, 2008
WTF? Seriously, if you don't understand any of the laws of thermodynamics, just STFU. Just stop commenting and go read a book.
Do most of you realize that most of our electricity in the US is produced by coal. I guess if it doesn't come out of the tailpipe, it doesn't count, right?
Hydrogen? Do you people realize how we produce most of the world's hydrogen? H2 is a very common element in the universe. But on earth (where we live, but some of you make me wonder), those H atoms are usually stuck to C atoms. Or O atoms that require energy input to break the bonds. As in, electricity.
There needs to be a lot of changes before we talk about any of this. 2015? I call bullshit.
written by Joe S., June 28, 2008
Meanwhile, back in America, we're still going bankrupt fighting twentieth century Oil Wars.
written by protothad, June 28, 2008
Electric cars need not drive like golf carts. An electic motor has more torque and a better acceleration curve than a comparible gas engine, which is why a Tesla can outperform a Lamborgini. An electic engine is also more efficient... even if you generate the electicity with oil or coal, you use far less to go the same distance than when driving a gas powered car. The Tesla, for example, gets the equivilent of 110 mpg despite having performance like a gas guzzling 12 cylinder sports car.
Add to that the fact that electic cars will typically charge overnight, when utilities have unused capacity and often waste fuel keeping turbines spun up... and the ability to generate fuel from unables to further reduce cost.
The only current down side is limited range, but even that is less of an issue with newer battery tech and plug-in hybrids.
written by John, June 28, 2008
Conventional wisdom states that there are two pieces of machinery, that will never feasibly run on electricity, without which the way of life that has led this planet to sustain 6 billion humans, with room to grow, comes to an abrupt and unpleasant end.
They are the harvesting combine, and the cargo jet. To these, I would add a third, being the 18-wheeler, and a fourth, being the locomotive.
A couple posts above this one, someone references the laws of thermodynamics. Far be it for me to pretend to be a science nerd, but I must agree with the overall call of bullshit. The basic problem is one of energy storage per pound, when we're talking about tranaportation. Show me a battery that delivers the same power level at its last 1% of use that it did at its first 1%. Yet a gasoline or diesel engine runs at the same level of output on the last few ounces of fuel in the tank that it does on the first few.
A widespread adoption of electric vehicles will only result in more electricity needing to be generated, which simply transfers the pollution from your tailpipe to a utility company's smokestack. Nothing changes with a switch to electric vehicles, unless we go nuke in a major, major way - which will never happen due to the barrage of leftist clownshoes howling madly in mindless protest.
Oh, hydrogen cars? Yeah, we can get the stuff by zapping water to break the H2O bond. But hydrogen would have to be compressed to a liquid state for a vehicle burning it to have any decent range. Why don't they use propane in cars? Because a collision severe enough to rupture the fuel tank leaves an inconvenient CRATER in the road, and of course, kills or horribly maims all involved. Now, do any of you folks remember the Hindenburg? Dig out your copy of Led Zeppelin's debut album, if you need a reminder.
The reason I cite algae biodiesel as a viable, sustainable long-term solution is simple: it's not energy negative, and three of the four critical machines I've listed above can run on it with minimal retrofitting. (Some bright person will figure out how to make jet engines run on the stuff, and then we're golden.) Betweem Reno and Las Vegas there's not much except sand and scorpions. Several million acres of desert put into algae biodiesel production would pretty well take care of all our domestic needs; the only thing we'd need gasoline for is high performance vehicles like sports cars and motorcycles, and with jets, trains, combines and tractor trailers no longer competing for the finite supply of petro fuels, those prices would not be unreasonable. Nor would we be in any danger of exhausting the planet's supply of oil.
In closing, I'd like to point out that to the extent that the Earth is warming, it's not humans which are causing it. No, it's the Sun. Solar activity has been much higher that we're used to for some time now, and that's the real culprit. Why don't we hear this, you ask? Simple. The conservatives won't admit that the Sun is acting up because we have no way to control it and that means uncertanity, which is bad for the stock market. The leftists won't admit that the Sun is acting up because then they can't blame global warming (such as it is) on the conservatives.
written by William, June 29, 2008
written by anthony, June 30, 2008
As for bio-fuel, lets use all the agricultural land to grow fuel for a mechanical monster instead of for a human.
I wonder where they get the ingredients for all the batteries for electric cars, what happens to them when they expire, whats the long term effect and add to that the steel used for cars, refining the ore, the electricity used for that, generated how... wake up people...no matter what 'alternataives' we use we are still screwing the public and mother nature.
written by Gerg, June 30, 2008
They are the harvesting combine, and the cargo jet. To these, I would add a third, being the 18-wheeler, and a fourth, being the locomotive.
Uhm, except for the occasional steam train locomotives *do* run on electricity. Some have diesel generators on board but wherever the infrastructure's in place they run directly off the grid.
written by J O'Toole, July 05, 2008
This should be the topic crowding the media ways and amazingly, not a peep that I have heard and even this eco site article on cars has no mention of this vitally important developement.
written by DON ROBINSON, July 05, 2008
written by jack marchand, July 07, 2008
Less talk....let's roll..!!!
er'' glide..!!!
check this...dates back to the 1960s http://trillions.topcities.com/dualmodemaglev.html
written by BreeG, July 27, 2008
written by anon, July 30, 2008
FYI - according to James Hansen the godfather of global warming movement, the problem is not the petroleum product based vehicles. It is the power plants.
Want to save the earth? Consume less electricity, not more.
written by sims, September 29, 2008
written by ahmad 190, October 06, 2008
Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings I am Ahmed from Palestine from the city of the Nativity of Christ on the letter why you decided on Aug ideas and designs of motor vehicles, I hope they take into account that you will not lose anything by virtue of possibilities exist for you, and I have a hobby in innovation and design ideas have no physical possibilities And technical in this country to this area and others, Aldrahat, automobiles, shipping, buses, and I'm loving Almclarin and Almrsidis Benz is very, very, very special and I ask God to help us all
written by Justin, October 20, 2008
@ALL the people saying electric cars just transfer pollution: Seriously, just do a very basic Google search, I beg you. You can get 100% of your electricity from coal, you will still produce FAR less emissions than your internal combustion engine. I have heard this argument so many times now I can no longer be polite. It's like saying driving a Yaris is just as bad as driving a Corvette (after all, they both use gasoline, right?). Where will we get the energy to power all these electric cars you ask. We will likely get it from cleaner and cleaner sources as time goes on, but even if we don't it would still be less polluting than using gasoline for cars.
written by hpjdmengines, November 24, 2008
written by Uncle B, January 28, 2009
written by krista, April 08, 2009
i am so broke and they are offering a $1000 cash prize for putting up a video on youtube... i just had to participate! hoping to see you guys participating too :) cheers
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUN 26
"Nice post I Like your site very well and continue to do so. I have boo..."
View all Comments