Mercedes runs out of gas by 2015

Mercedes -- like a lot of other folks -- believes oil is going to run out eventually. But instead of waiting until the "Low on Oil" light comes on, the brand behind the three-pointed-star has set a goal to convert its entire fleet to run on alternative fuels by 2015. That's seven years to get off the drink we've all been addicted to for well over a century.

In the pipeline first are fuel-efficient technologies such as Stop/Start on the marque's next A- and B-Class models sold in Europe. Then come the Blue Efficiency vehicles with Mercedes' supremely parsimonious diesel engines, and eventually the Diesotto first shown in the F700.

And then come the real showstoppers: ethanol, electric, and fuel cell vehicles. There are electric smarts running trials in London right now, and the F600 Hygenius is expected to eventually spawn some sort of production variant. On the face of it, seven years to go diesel- and gas-optional for an entire fleet is somewhat hard to fathom -- but the prediction is coming from a company not previously known for wild daring. Even if they just get close to success, in only seven years, they might prove a nearby rival wrong about what's doable under the new CAFE laws.

Source: AutoblogGreen

I think a reality check is in order here.

What they are saying is that by 2015 they want their fleet to be CAPABLE of running on alternative fuels. They are not saying that they are going to stop producing gasoline engines.

Big Freaking Deal. You take all the gas burners, put in the sensor and programming to make them E85 capable, which is existing technology today that they already have on SOME of their gas burners, and then they can do what they said they would do. Figure out the biodiesel / DPF compatibility issue and then the diesels are sorted out, too.

(Yes, I know they've got a lot more on the go than just that, but that's all it would take to achieve what they stated.)

The fact that it is not even remotely possible to produce enough E85 to go around is another matter entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Mercedes engineering - but I think this particular situation is the PR department working overtime.

I think its a great plan. The trick is to make it more than just a paper idea. Hopefully these manufacturers won't all be falling by the wayside from a lack of planning and shorter term implementation.

GoFaster said:

(snip) Big Freaking Deal. (snip) think this particular situation is the PR department working overtime.

Click to expand...

__. Totally. And read the "green-zealotry" wording "seven years to get off the drink we've all been addicted to for well over a century" and you realize that somebody's got their air head stuck way up their green a$s. We've got to have energy. That energy could be (and was for millenia) human and animal energy, then human and animal plus wood and then coal; our "addiction for over a century" has been to replace some of the human, animal, wood and coal energy with energy from petroleum. We could cut some of our petroleum use tomorrow with simple savings -- with a bit more leadtime and a lot of $$$$, we could reduce it's use substantially. But why? Would it be better to burn wood and coal to make our energy instead; especially if it's necessary to go through wasteful energy storage (i.e. coal fired power plants to make electricity that looses efficiency when it's transmitted and then looses efficiency when it's stored in batteried in a car and then looses efficiency during storage time and the looses efficiency when it's used). This is so "better" that some political zealots have to get their knickers all wrapped around their bits about "the drink we've all been addicted to for well over a century"? Give me a break, get real, and get off the political high horse.

__. The "drink that we have all been addicted to for well over a century" is just a tool. Sure, it should be used wisely, but there's nothing wrong with it. Let's skip the political cr@p and find some good ways to make energy use more efficient and better with the environment.

__. And don't get me started on a world where a third of the population is starving and some people are talking about burning food (which already has high petro-energy content it it) for energy.

I wanted to reply, but you captured it all pretty well.

mrGutWrench said:

__. Totally. And read the "green-zealotry" wording "seven years to get off the drink we've all been addicted to for well over a century" and you realize that somebody's got their air head stuck way up their green a$s. We've got to have energy. That energy could be (and was for millenia) human and animal energy, then human and animal plus wood and then coal; our "addiction for over a century" has been to replace some of the human, animal, wood and coal energy with energy from petroleum. We could cut some of our petroleum use tomorrow with simple savings -- with a bit more leadtime and a lot of $$$$, we could reduce it's use substantially. But why? Would it be better to burn wood and coal to make our energy instead; especially if it's necessary to go through wasteful energy storage (i.e. coal fired power plants to make electricity that looses efficiency when it's transmitted and then looses efficiency when it's stored in batteried in a car and then looses efficiency during storage time and the looses efficiency when it's used). This is so "better" that some political zealots have to get their knickers all wrapped around their bits about "the drink we've all been addicted to for well over a century"? Give me a break, get real, and get off the political high horse.

__. The "drink that we have all been addicted to for well over a century" is just a tool. Sure, it should be used wisely, but there's nothing wrong with it. Let's skip the political cr@p and find some good ways to make energy use more efficient and better with the environment.

__. And don't get me started on a world where a third of the population is starving and some people are talking about burning food (which already has high petro-energy content it it) for energy.

Click to expand...

It is too bad that amidst all the talk and posturing, do-gooders the world over are missing the point (perhaps because it never meshes with their real agenda, that of taking over control of your life) that the free market is accomplishing exactly what they have been whining about for ages.

High prices are harnessing market forces to accomplish the goals of lowered fuel consumption and more efficient fuel usage. No government solution will ever do so well.

thank you.

Powder Hound said:

It is too bad that amidst all the talk and posturing, do-gooders the world over are missing the point (perhaps because it never meshes with their real agenda, that of taking over control of your life) that the free market is accomplishing exactly what they have been whining about for ages.

High prices are harnessing market forces to accomplish the goals of lowered fuel consumption and more efficient fuel usage. No government solution will ever do so well.

Click to expand...

*cough* Europe *cough* and everywhere BUT the US. Gov't solutions have been working there, our TDIs are direct proof. We [the US] are so far behind and now it's costing us. And it'll take YEARS to achieve parity MPG-wise with the rest of the world, if ever. We're in for a rough ride.