Mercedes to cut petroleum out of lineup by 2015 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pmari · #1 06-26-2008, 08:43 PM

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 power-trains in the line-up that European journalists have had the opportunity to test out in the Mercedes facility in Spain. One vehicle includes the F700, powered by a DiesOtto engine that combines HCCI and spark ignition to get nearly the same efficiency as diesel, but minus the expensive after-treatment systems.

The engine can run on biofuels, and we may have a purchasable vehicle by 2010 -- a year that seems to be popular for the debut of a lot of new alternative fuel car models, making ’08 and ’09 simply thumb-twiddling years for consumers. I don’t know, maybe car makers just like the roundness of “2010.” The company’s next big step will be to launch a Smart electric car which is fuel and emission-free.

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 its 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 London, with that favorite 2010 year as the projected market release date.

Mercedes is making serious investments, already putting nearly $4 million into the pot of its long-term Sustainable Mobility plan, with another nearly $1.4 billion going in before 2014.

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, clean-running vehicles out of 100% recycled materials in plants run on 100% renewable, clean power … Will I even be alive when that finally happens? I have hope.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/603/mercedes-to-cut-petroleum-out-of-lineup-by-2015.html

#2 06-26-2008, 09:25 PM

They can't even make an engine that meets the 2010 emissions limits without exhaust aftertreatments, there is no possible way they will get rid of petro vehicles by 2015. Especially in their heavy duty line in euriope.

2050 is a more realistic goal.

tyl604 · #3 06-26-2008, 09:31 PM

Putting a slim $4 million into a project is not exactly a stong statement from Mercedes.

Hatterasguy · #4 06-26-2008, 10:25 PM

Yeah $4m is pocket change for a company like them. If they were serious they would need to add a B to that number and than some.

They can already claim that title, just run the diesels on B100, and the gas cars on ethonal. Their you go petroleum free motering!

It also takes 5-7 years to design and introduce a new model. So starting from a clean sheet of paper now, 2014 would be about right for a new car. Any car coming out in 2010 started life back in 2004/5ish.

#5 06-26-2008, 10:45 PM

Yup, seems unlikely that they would make this announcement through some random blog instead of a press release. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Hatterasguy · #6 06-26-2008, 10:49 PM

Oh yeah I didn't even notice that, the source is suspect.

If CNN, Fox, or NBC didn't pick it up its probably not true, thats pretty big news and good PR for MB.

pawoSD · #7 06-27-2008, 12:38 AM

If I recall their display on alternative energy at the auto show was rather small, and vastly dwarfed by the SL63 AMG display and other thirsty gasser displays including Maybach....

The timeline for moving to different fuels was way farther out than 2010-2015....

Sir Sam · #8 06-27-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmari

.........The company’s next big step will be to launch a Smart electric car which is fuel and emission-free.
.....

emissions free my ass, try "displaced emissions vehicle"

pawoSD · #9 06-27-2008, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Sam

emissions free my ass, try "displaced emissions vehicle"

Its still vastly more clean and efficient than an internal combustion powered car....the efficiency of a power plant is vastly higher than that of a car. Also, the pollution is away from the roads, where people are, which makes people healthier too by removing some localized smog and pollution levels.

Not to mention if your power provider happens to be Nuclear, Hydro or Wind....then its essentially emission free.

#10 06-27-2008, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

Not to mention if your power provider happens to be Nuclear, Hydro or Wind....then its essentially emission free.

Except the local environmental damage they cause and resources consumed in production.

Cervan · #11 06-27-2008, 02:38 AM

I think b100 will take us far beyond 2010, it can be grown meaning its a natural renewable resource It will take more energy to create hydrogen than it will to produce (in time and new tech from larger companys) 100 200? who knows how many gallons of b100. Then again, if somone finds out a way to turn sugar into hydrogen, or something then that would rapidly accelerate the use of hydrogen instead (Same for biodiesel)

Sir Sam · #12 06-28-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

Its still vastly more clean and efficient than an internal combustion powered car....the efficiency of a power plant is vastly higher than that of a car. Also, the pollution is away from the roads, where people are, which makes people healthier too by removing some localized smog and pollution levels.

Not to mention if your power provider happens to be Nuclear, Hydro or Wind....then its essentially emission free.

That doesn't matter, I am tired of people trying to spout the virtues of "emissions free" electric vehicles.

Ya sure, the car doesn't spit out carbon, but the Navajo powerplant located just across the border into arizona does.

Sure, just displace those emissions over the border away from you....ya, thats the exact same thing.

Biglex · #13 06-28-2008, 02:48 AM

Nuclear power is low emission, but then you run into the problem of disposing of spent fuel rods. Water, wind and solar are pretty much emissions free. We NEED to pursue these to the greatest extent possible.

#14 06-28-2008, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biglex

Water, wind and solar are pretty much emissions free.

You also need to consider the damage they cause to the local environment. Emissions are only part of the deal.

Water plays hell with fish, destroys the natural habitat behind the dam, alters sediment flow and changes the natural flood cycle.

Solar takes up large amounts of land in power generation density compared to other power sources and only works a few hours a day.

Wind is unreliable, kills birds and is an eyesore in the countryside.

Nuclear is the best. Dealing with spent fuel is safe and easy.

Cervan · #15 06-28-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

You also need to consider the damage they cause to the local environment. Emissions are only part of the deal.

Water plays hell with fish, destroys the natural habitat behind the dam, alters sediment flow and changes the natural flood cycle.

Solar takes up large amounts of land in power generation density compared to other power sources and only works a few hours a day.

Wind is unreliable, kills birds and is an eyesore in the countryside.

Not to mention the oil they spray allover the ground.