Mercedes-Benz To Go All-Electric By 2030 (nbcnews.com) 94
Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler plans to invest more than 40 billion euros, or $47 billion, between 2022 and 2030 to develop battery-electric vehicles, and be ready for an all-electric car market by 2030. NBC News reports: Outlining its strategy for an electric future, the German luxury carmaker said on Thursday it would, with partners, build eight battery plants as it ramps up EV production, and that from 2025 all new vehicle platforms would only make electric cars. "We really want to go for it ... and be dominantly, if not all electric, by the end of the decade," Chief Executive Ola Kallenius told Reuters, adding that spending on traditional combustion-engine technology would be "close to zero" by 2025. However, Daimler stopped short of giving a hard deadline for ending sales of fossil-fuel cars.
Daimler said that as of 2025, it expects electric and hybrid electric cars to make up 50 percent of sales, earlier than its previous forecast that this would happen by 2030. The carmaker will unveil three electric platforms -- one to cover its range of passenger cars and SUVs, one for vans and one for high-performance vehicles -- that will be launched in 2025. Four of its new battery plants will be in Europe and one in the United States. Daimler said it would announce new European partners for its battery production plans soon.
Daimler said that as of 2025, it expects electric and hybrid electric cars to make up 50 percent of sales, earlier than its previous forecast that this would happen by 2030. The carmaker will unveil three electric platforms -- one to cover its range of passenger cars and SUVs, one for vans and one for high-performance vehicles -- that will be launched in 2025. Four of its new battery plants will be in Europe and one in the United States. Daimler said it would announce new European partners for its battery production plans soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Women are having less than 2 kids almost everywhere in the world. Population is estimated to start declining after 9 billion (11 billion according to UN which according to the critics does not take into account the effect of urbanization in Africa). So having less kids is not a good solution. Much better solution (in terms of human suffering) would be to kill all the old people as population increase is mostly caused by people living very long. The same would happen if we would stop having kids, but only af
Re: (Score:2)
We throw away more than enough food to feed all the people who are going hungry.
Of course, climate change is reducing carrying capacity as we speak through (among other things) crop failures. So the population WILL be more than earth can support soon, but because we've reduced earth's ability to support it and not because it's increased.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
11 billion is unsustainable. The starvation and lack of water alone would cause a decline.
You sure? We're at what, 7 now? So that's a 50% increase? I think we could grow 50% more food if we had to.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment about vegetable diet is also dangerous. Two vegans in an Italian study were found to have an environmental impact considerably higher than many meat-eaters. Reason was that they were eating a lot of fruits. On average vegans have less impact on environment than meat eaters, but you have to be careful about what you eat.
It's not just that they were eating fruit. I found an article about the study [bbc.com]. It turns out they would have been eating air-freight imported special fruit. That's crazy, especially in an Italian summer where there's so much good stuff locally produced that they could be eating instead. Generally the rule is that vegan will be better, but try to buy as much as possible locally or, if it has to be imported, brought in by ship. Probably in Scandinavia in winter there will be situations where local meat pr
Cargo ships (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's strange how nobody considers the (mostly hidden) logistics cost of the status-quot.
"Well it would be an improvement, but what about (thing that's already a problem)?" - Simple: It would still be an improvement.
It's almost like people are just making excuses...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is, the vast majority of common people out there going on about their daily lives, don't really see any problems with the current status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-tweets-mashup-of-political-ad-and-mass-effect-2-video-game-trailer-video/
Is it just me, or did someone hack them? [archive.is]
Pinky up, and don't spare the Grey Poupon. (Score:2)
Is it possible to be smugly superior in an EV?
Re: (Score:3)
If you can afford a Mercedes, you can afford a car parking space with an electric outlet.
Me? I'm still relying on nineteenth century technology electric vehicles - trams and trains.
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes are one of the worst cars for depreciation. Some extreme examples will lose $10,000+ a year. So if you don’t mind getting your hands dirty they’re great cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my experience... a beautiful car to drive. But the cost of maintenance was mind-numbing. It was a couple of years old when I bought it from a dealer but was mileage-light. Over time I was spending 10% of the car cost annually to keep it going. Sigh.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it possible to be smugly superior in an EV?
Why not, it was possible to do so with hybrids.
Re: (Score:2)
If 10 houses in a row all draw 20,000 watts to charge their EVs overnight, guess what will happen.
Nothing, because your example is implausible? Average car mileage per vehicle does not support such a scenario.
burn, baby, burn! (Score:5, Informative)
ICE is not the problem, its the fuel source (Score:2)
Good. All ICEs cars should be confiscated.
ICE is not the problem, its the fuel source. Replace fossil fuel based gas with gas from a carbon neutral source. There is a lot of research going on here, although its usually in the context of aviation fuel.
Re:ICE is not the problem, its the fuel source (Score:4, Interesting)
ICE would still be a problem even if it were carbon neutral. You still have tailpipe emissions in populated areas, noise, vibration, and nasty smells. On top of that, the driving experience is still worse than EVs: weaker acceleration, jerkier ride (especially acceleration). And you can't routinely refuel at home.
Re: (Score:2)
ICE would still be a problem even if it were carbon neutral. You still have tailpipe emissions in populated areas, noise, vibration, and nasty smells. On top of that, the driving experience is still worse than EVs: weaker acceleration, jerkier ride (especially acceleration). And you can't routinely refuel at home.
PHEVs solve the performance issues, and allow at home charging for daily commutes, while not destroying the convenience and safety of fast fill ups and long range. Yes, I said safety. If there is a widespread power outage, a mass evacuation from a hurricane, or any of a number of other issues then a car that burns hydrocarbons can be a "life boat" and/or a means to get out of harms way. Every filling station with a generator becomes an oasis on the path out of harm's way. In cold temperatures a PHEV giv
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really, honestly, genuinely think catalytic converters solve the problem of tailpipe emissions? It's not just a line in an argument that you're trotting out, you truly believe this? If so, *why*? How on earth can you have convinced yourself of a position so at odds with the facts? Catalytic converters solve the problem of tailpipe emissions the same way low tar cigarettes solve the problem of smoking causing cancer, ie they don't. Running a hose from your tailpipe to the car interior is still an incr
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really, honestly, genuinely think catalytic converters solve the problem of tailpipe emissions?
Auto emissions regulations have done wonders for air quality, as demonstrated by Los Angeles. The solution involves far more than catalytic converters.
Also, most ICE cars make tons of engine noise
Which is at times a safety feature. Silent EVs are dangerous in parking lots and other pedestrian heavy environments. A low rumble of an ICE or an EV issuing warning beeps from its speakers are equivalent. At speed wheel/road and wind noise dominate.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before, tailpipe emissions are low pollution the same way that cigarettes are low tar. They both still kill people.
Re noise, I live in the UK, which took on the EU regulations requiring EVs to make noises at low speed. I've always thought this was misguided. Injury rates are proportionate to speed for car accidents, so at the speeds at which EVs are silent (below 18mph), a crash with a pedestrian is unlikely to do harm. Above 18mph, EVs are audible due to wind and tyre noise, but are still much qu
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before, tailpipe emissions are low pollution the same way that cigarettes are low tar. They both still kill people.
How many, credible citation please.
Re noise, I live in the UK, which took on the EU regulations requiring EVs to make noises at low speed. I've always thought this was misguided. Injury rates are proportionate to speed for car accidents, so at the speeds at which EVs are silent (below 18mph), a crash with a pedestrian is unlikely to do harm.
18 mph unlikely to do harm, ridiculous. "Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph" https://aaafoundation.org/impa... [aaafoundation.org]
I'm glad to see you've conceded the obvious truth that EVs are quieter than ICE cars.
Concede? I never claimed otherwise. My claim is the difference is insignificant at speed (speaking as someone who has spent many miles in Teslas) and the silence at low speed is a hazard to pedestrians.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, how about *you* provide some credible citations to back up *your* claim that tailpipe emissions no longer cause harm to human health?
As for the second part, I think an accident that does not cause serious injury 90% of the time is reasonably described as an accident unlikely to do harm.
Could the person who wrote: "If electric cars are quieter then that's because they are more expensive vehicles where they put more money into materials and construction to lower the noise." have a quick word wi
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before, tailpipe emissions are low pollution the same way that cigarettes are low tar. They both still kill people.
How many, credible citation please.
Tell you what, how about *you* provide some credible citations to back up *your* claim that tailpipe emissions no longer cause harm to human health?
That's not what I said. I actually wrote: "Auto emissions regulations have done wonders for air quality, as demonstrated by Los Angeles. The solution involves far more than catalytic converters."
Given that you are resorting to lying and have an unwillingness to backup your claims, it seems that you have effectively abandoned your position.
18 mph unlikely to do harm, ridiculous. "Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph"
As for the second part, I think an accident that does not cause serious injury 90% of the time is reasonably described as an accident unlikely to do harm.
LOL 10% likelihood of *severe* injury. You call that unlikely to do harm. Thank you for proving your position nonsensical.
Could the person who wrote: "If electric cars are quieter then that's because they are more expensive vehicles where they put more money into materials and construction to lower the noise." have a quick word with the person who wrote "Concede? I never claimed otherwise." because they don't seem to know what each other are saying
You do realize those two comments did not come
Re: (Score:2)
Look what's happened to you. You're so determined to "win" an argument, you've committed yourself to the following absurd positions:
- Questioning the link between tailpipe emissions and human health ("How many, credible citation please")
- Pretending that pedestrian injuries from silent EVs are genuinely likely (ignoring noise emitters)
- Claiming EVs are effectively just as noisy as ICE cars at speed
But you go on worrying about theoretical injuries to folks being knocked over by the devil's silent cars, and
Re: (Score:2)
Look what's happened to you. You're so determined to "win" an argument, you've committed yourself to the following absurd positions: - Questioning the link between tailpipe emissions and human health ("How many, credible citation please")
Again, you lie. I wanted evidence of a major problem rather than a minor problem.
- Pretending that pedestrian injuries from silent EVs are genuinely likely (ignoring noise emitters)
Again, you lie. I pointed out the silence *you claimed* can have a downside. And then debunked your claim that the injuries were minor.
- Claiming EVs are effectively just as noisy as ICE cars at speed
Given that most of the noise is wind and road/tire, yes. And again, speaking as someone who has spent many a highway mile in a 5.6L V8 ICE and in a Tesla.
But you go on worrying about theoretical injuries to folks being knocked over by the devil's silent cars, ...
The point was you lied about the minor nature of such injuries. You even supplied the threshold defining situations, 18mph.
Please, keep dig
Re: (Score:2)
ICE would still be a problem even if it were carbon neutral. You still have tailpipe emissions in populated areas, noise, vibration, and nasty smells. On top of that, the driving experience is still worse than EVs: weaker acceleration, jerkier ride (especially acceleration). And you can't routinely refuel at home.
None of those are reasons ICE vehicles should be outlawed. The only possible justification is carbon emissions and that can be solved by moving from petroleum to bio or some other carbon neutral. ICE is a valid technology, it will have roles where it makes more sense. People should have the option for when it does, again, with carbon neutral fuels available.
Re: (Score:2)
You said ICE wasn't the problem. I simply pointed out reasons why ICE remained a problem outside carbon emissions.
Incidentally, what is your rationale for asserting tailpipe emissions aren't a sufficient reason to require a ban?
Re: (Score:2)
You said ICE wasn't the problem. I simply pointed out reasons why ICE remained a problem outside carbon emissions.
No you did not. None of those are serious problems.
Incidentally, what is your rationale for asserting tailpipe emissions aren't a sufficient reason to require a ban?
They are currently highly regulated for emissions and since doing so area such as Los Angeles have significantly cleaner air than in past decades. Emission regulations worked. Emissions are no longer a serious problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not think tailpipe emissions in populated areas, noise, vibration, and nasty smells are serious problems; others disagree. And if you really believe your guff about tailpipe emissions, I dare you to run a hosepipe from your exhaust to your car interior and sit in there for an hour or two. Bet you wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither would I breath the purest oxygen at a depth of 40 feet underwater.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh c'mon. This is a truly pathetic analogy. The reason you don't want to breathe in the tailpipe emissions is because the poisons in there will hurt you. It's not because there's too much oxygen or water or whatever, is it? You can't credibly argue that tailpipe emissions are a non-issue at the same time as saying "I won't breathe them in"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh c'mon. This is a truly pathetic analogy. The reason you don't want to breathe in the tailpipe emissions is because the poisons in there will hurt you.
Not really, you simply fail to realize at low concentrations some things are merely a minor problem while at high concentrations they can be a lethal problem.
It's not because there's too much oxygen or water or whatever, is it? You can't credibly argue that tailpipe emissions are a non-issue at the same time as saying "I won't breathe them in"
Again, you lie. What I actually said is "They are currently highly regulated for emissions and since doing so area such as Los Angeles have significantly cleaner air than in past decades. Emission regulations worked. Emissions are no longer a serious problem." And they are poised to become even less of a problem as California introduced yet another rou
Re: (Score:2)
"Emissions are no longer a serious problem" is not meaningfully different from my paraphrase of this as "Emissions are a non-issue". The fact that you characterise this as "a lie" says a lot more about you than you might wish. (As does the fact you use the phrase "Again, you lie" implying that you have made the same accusation upthread, when you have not. It speaks to who you are)
Meanwhile, the notion that your analogy of breathing in tailpipe emissions to drowning or oxygen poisonous has any credibility wh
Re: (Score:2)
"Emissions are no longer a serious problem" is not meaningfully different from my paraphrase of this as "Emissions are a non-issue".
Non-issue's get ignored. Minor issues are addressed, as in the upcoming round of updated emissions I mentioned. Minor issues are however things that would not justify a ban.
The fact that you characterise this as "a lie" says a lot more about you than you might wish.
In context you were conflating the emissions a driver or pedestrian might experience with that of running a hose from the tailpipe to the passenger compartment. Such conflation is essentially another lie. Please keep digging that hole.
>Meanwhile, the notion that your analogy of breathing in tailpipe emissions to drowning or oxygen poisonous has any credibility whatsoever again says more about you than you might wish.
No it says precisely what I wish, that many things in excess can be harmful. Be they car emissions or w
Re: (Score:1)
On top of that, the driving experience is still worse than EVs: weaker acceleration, jerkier ride (especially acceleration). And you can't routinely refuel at home.
driving experience is subjective of course, though most people will likely agree with you.
however, consider how many people still prefer mechanical watches over electric ones, even though the latter are more accurate, have less maintenance, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia the ruling government actually went to the last election saying that the opposition wants to take peoples ICE cars away.
Should be easy to promise not to. Trust is earned though. Did they even get that far?
Wouldn't Work in Canada Either (Score:4, Funny)
In Australia the ruling government actually went to the last election saying that the opposition wants to take peoples ICE cars away.
That would be an unpopular policy here in Canada too since all our cars are ice cars [guideautoweb.com].
Re: (Score:3)
That would be an unpopular policy here in Canada too since all our cars are ice cars [guideautoweb.com].
Climate change is making ICE an impractical material for building cars. With badly needed subsidies one day all cars will be made from green metal and plastic!
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is making ICE an impractical material for building cars. With badly needed subsidies one day all cars will be made from green metal and plastic!
You mean we will run out of paint for blue, red, white, and black?
When I lived in Texas I noticed that everyone drove a vehicle that was white, light tan, light grey, or red. Anyone driving a vehicle of a different color I assumed to be visiting. If the vehicles are all made of green metal and plastic then expect a lot of unhappy Texans.
Re: (Score:2)
Also with square wheels, buddy!
Re:burn, baby, burn! (Score:4, Insightful)
In Australia the ruling government actually went to the last election saying that the opposition wants to take peoples ICE cars away. Like, as a negative. And they won. Such stupid.
They wouldn't by chance be part of the conservative party, now would they?
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't by chance be part of the conservative party, now would they?
No, it is the Liberal Party [wikipedia.org].
In Australia, everything is upside down.
Re: (Score:3)
Liberalism has always been a conservative ideology [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately modern "conservatives" are no longer conservative and are more often authoritarian radicals than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is the Liberal Party [wikipedia.org].
In Australia, everything is upside down.
According to your Wikipedia link they are "Political position: Centre-right" which makes them conservative rather than progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, the right wing conservative party in Australia is called .. Liberal.
Yeah, I know. Weird, right?
But I really don't think they are fooling anyone.
At least I hope not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: burn, baby, burn! (Score:1)
Such stupid.
I'm without words. Apparently, so are you.
Re: (Score:2)
And they won. Such stupid.
A person often elects based on one pet policy. People rarely do, and when they do they do so for varying reasons.
The idea that the Liberals won because of this one lie is just stupid on the face of it. Hell man I voted for the Libs and I didn't even hear this claim.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive an EV, owned a previous one for many years and a 90% electric-miles Chevy volt before that. I would like EVs to take over not because people are forbidden from having ICE vehicles, but because EVs get more capable, cheaper (both initial cost where they lag behind and TCO where they have a huge advantage) and more plentifu
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you get an replacement and they adopt said replacement it might be considered negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unusual.
People associate big powerful beefy cars with lots of noise and flash - race cars, for example, or the big muscle cars of the 50s and 60s.
Wimpy cars are associated with quiet and economy - think the 4 bangers that became popular after the 80s.
Of course, other people realized if you want efficiency, the big sound is ac
Wondering when.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wondering when.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it continues to evolve and soon we'll have new spec cars with more battery capacity and powerful mot
Re: Rich People (Score:2)
Shouldn't they release a good electric car first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Crazy idea, but before promising to switch their entire brand over to electric cars, shouldn't Mercedes release a few models that... you know... don't suck?
Forget the fact that we don't have a nationwide charging standard or reasonably priced lithium ion battery packs for a moment... those things will hopefully be fixed over the next decade. What they really need to build a vehicle that people actually want to BUY over the ICE version before they can even think of switching everything over.
Re:Shouldn't they release a good electric car firs (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Germany does, it's called LadensÃulenverordnung
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Germany does, it's called LadensÃfulenverordnung
Which is another demonstration of everything in Germany having a long and barely pronounceable name. Which has lead to people just calling things by letter and "stoff".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's a bit like in English using "N-word" for, you know, "nuclear". Or using acronyms for everything. The words radar, laser/maser/taser, and more that fail me now have become words that started as acronyms.
Why can't the Germans use acronyms?
Re:Shouldn't they release a good electric car firs (Score:4, Informative)
Reviews of the EQS have been universally positive. The obvious strategy for this EV was to see if they could build something that would live up to the S class brand, using a dedicated EV platform, and if they could do that, the rest of the range would be relatively easier. And the strategy appears to have paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping for something affordable. That car looks like it's going to cost $80K. That's fine for an S class replacement, but not something that's going to have mainstream appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't Mercedes release a few models that... you know... don't suck?
Suck in what way? Be specific. What are your exact complains about e.g. the EQS, which may be overpriced and fugly, but hey that's core to Mercedes' brand and therefore not a factor. By all other accounts it's a pretty damn good car.
Re:Shouldn't they release a good electric car firs (Score:4, Interesting)
> Forget the fact that we don't have a nationwide charging standard or reasonably priced lithium ion battery packs for a moment...
SAE 1772-2017 (Type 2 in Europe, Type 1 everywhere else) + CCS. Good for up to 350kw (more than Tesla's 250kw supercharger, and way more than any EV currently on the market can use)
There's a handful of ChaDeMo stations out there in the US, which is a Japanese standard for fast charging used by the Nissan Leaf and one or two others that are no longer manufactured, but those stations were among the first modern stations installed in the country. Tesla is the odd man out. Doesn't mean there isn't a standard - Tesla just doesn't use it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they are legally required to, as the standard is enforced by the EU.
I don't think that's a bad thing...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy idea, but before promising to switch their entire brand over to electric cars, shouldn't Mercedes release a few models that... you know... don't suck?
GIven that EVs are about 2% of the US car market, you could say that about every vendor. No one (and I include Tesla) has an EV I'd consider buying.
In a related story... (Score:4, Funny)
Bayerische Motoren Werke announced today that it is developing a new BMW model that has turn signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Bimmers have matured over the years. Not nearly the exclusive club they use to be (and Japan's build quality is on par, if not surpassing).
The new obnoxiousness on the road is pick-up drivers, hands down.
Doubly so for pavement princesses.
Re: (Score:1)
Bayerische Motoren Werke announced today that it is developing a new BMW model that has turn signals.
Nice, took me a moment, but nicely done - I laughed!
We're gonna rock down to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Makes sense, due to EU 2035 cut off (Score:2)
Given that the EU has given a cut off of 2035 for internal combustion vehicles, I am surprised Mercedes hasn’t targeted earlier. Even with the 2030 date, this should give them 5 years head start to be ready for the new rules.
The cut off: https://euobserver.com/climate... [euobserver.com]
I'll wait (Score:2)
...until they go full non-fraud as well.