Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive Reduces Emissions By 64% Compared To Gas B 180

DEC 29 2014 BY MARK KANE 19

Carbon dioxide emission of the B-Class Electric Drive compared with the B 180 petrol-engine variant [t/car]

Carbon dioxide emission of the B-Class Electric Drive compared with the B 180 petrol-engine variant [t/car]

Just like with the Mercedes-Benz S 500 Plug-In Hybrid, Daimler ordered an environmental certification of the Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive to TÜV Süd.

This time, the CO2 emissions test shows that the B-Class ED is 64% lower compared to the B 180 petrol model (over 160,000 km or almost 100,000 miles), while using hydroelectricity or 24% under the EU’s electricity mix.

Results include production, service and recycling of the cars.

Full report indicates that renewable sources of energy are key for minimizing environmental impact and that the energy mix in some countries will not enable the reduction of pollution by switching to electric cars.

“Mercedes-Benz analyses the environmental compatibility of its models throughout their entire life cycle – from production, through their long years of service, to recycling at the end of their lives. This analysis goes far beyond the legal requirements. The Environmental Certificate and supplementary information are made available to the public as part of the “Life Cycle” documentation series, which can be accessed at http://www.mercedes-benz.com.

Over its entire life cycle, comprising production, use over 160,000 kilometres and recycling, the B-Class Electric Drive produces emissions of CO2 that are 24 percent (7.2 tonnes – EU electricity mix) or 64 percent (19 tonnes – hydroelectricity) lower than those of the B 180 – despite the higher emissions generated during the production process. This is due primarily to the exceptional efficiency of the electric motor, which gives rise to significant advantages during the use phase. One key factor here is its ingenious energy management system: the optional radar-based regenerative braking system, for example, ensures the optimal recuperation of braking energy back into the battery. This further enhances the efficiency of the drive system and enables even greater ranges.

CO2 emissions during the use phase here depend upon the method used to generate electricity. In 160,000 kilometres of driving use, the new B-Class Electric Drive (NEDC combined consumption from 16.6 kWh/100 km) produces 11.9 tonnes of CO2, assuming use of the EU electricity mix. When electricity generated by hydroelectric means is used to power the electric vehicle, the other environmental impacts relating to electricity generation are also almost entirely avoided. The B 180 (NEDC combined consumption 5.4 l/100 km) on the other hand emits 23.8 tonnes of CO2 during the use phase.”

Categories: Mercedes

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

19 Comments on "Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive Reduces Emissions By 64% Compared To Gas B 180"

newest oldest most voted
Ambulator

Renewables are not needed. Nuclear should get you roughly the same benefit as hydroelectric.

Anon

Solar panels or wind turbines don’t create human-free habitation zones from a radioactive meltdown….

Joshua Burstyn

Meltdowns are excessively rare. You get far more benefit from nuclear power than there’s likely ever been risk.

Mike

Yes, if rare is every 10 years, plus the unreported leaks which are monthly.

Aaron

Interestingly, more people die each year mining coal than all the nuclear disasters put together.

Someone out there

Neither does modern nuclear. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were gen 2 nuclears that required active safety. Generation 3 plants are passive safety plants, i.e. when something happens they shut down on their own because of how they are constructed. Generation 4 goes even further, a catastrophic meltdown is not even possible because the fuel is already in a melted state.

Miggy

I live in a country with NO Nuclear Power and we get by just fine. Pleased to keep it that way.

Mikael

But a country with still as much as 25% fossil fuel in the electricity generation and an abundance of hydro.
Hydro which are many magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear by the way. That’s not the point though. The point is that some countries have natural resources (almost always hydro) to manage without nuclear, and thats fine but its not the situation for everyone.

Nuclear and hydro has many times proven to be the fastest, easiest and smartest ways to lower emissions and get clean green electricity.

GSP

Roughly the same benefit, yes.

However the Swedes that were downwind of Chernobyl may perfer to import hydropower from Norway. Sweden even decommissioned one of their perfectly good nuclear reactors, at great expense, after the Chernobyl incident.

Nuclear plants are an expensive way to make electricity, but they do come in handy if the goal is to produce weapons grade plutonium, with electric power sales just an enabler to pay for it.

GSP

Mike

The problem with nuclear plants can be they’re built in the wrong place. Not respecting the 100 year flood level or faults.

Mikael

Sweden would definitely not prefer hydro from Norway. There is a large majority in favor or keeping the nuclear.

Sweden having some of the cheapest electricity in Europe would also disagree with that. The question and discussion is rather if the extra expense of other renewables like wind is worth it. Especially considering the effect balance and the new back up generation needed.

And the perfectly good nuclear power plant that was shut down was not because of Sweden but in a request from Denmark. The agreement was that Denmark should shut down the equivalent coal power plants which caused a real and documented harm to swedes (and danes to of course) compared to the irrational fear of nuclear.
Sweden held their end of the bargain, Denmark did not. But they are at least going in the right direction so in another 10 years they might.

Someone out there

“Sweden even decommissioned one of their perfectly good nuclear reactors, at great expense, after the Chernobyl incident.”

Yes, 20 years later… The decommissioning Barsebäck had very little to do with Chernobyl, it was because of pressure from Denmark as it was located only a few miles away from Copenhagen.

zoe-driver

Two things will happen:

1.) Fuel Production CO2 will increase over the next years by a factor of two to three. The simple drills are getting their decline.

2.) The renewables will increse, because all other electricity production methods are too expensive. Money rules!

zoe-driver

Forgot one thing:

The production CO2 for electric cars will decrese due to more efficient production when ist comes to mass production. An other point will be much more CO2 environment friendly battery production processes.

Mike

How far back in the gas cycle do they go to calc the gas footprint.
Do they include:
– The electricity to refine the gas.
– The electricity to build the steel for pipelines, cargo ships, tanker trucks, gas station tanks?

Freeing ourselves from oil will relieve the economy of many pollution sources from oil extraction, refinement and transportation, along with it’s infrastructure and maintenance costs.

Djoni

Exactly!
I’ll be surprise that they’re not doing the same thing as other questionnable calculation.
As if gas just get in the tank of the car without having been produced somewhere.
Also, how is the recycling at the end of life been calculated?
Many alternative exist for the battery to have a second life as stand alone power or energy storage for an equivalent or longer life than the original aim.
If any of those haven’t been considered, it’s BS.
Also right about nuclear power and I can’t see how you can compare the safety issue of it with hydro.
I just can’t find any hydro catastophe.

Mikael

Banquiao – 230 000 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Kelly Barns Dam – 39 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Barnes_Dam

Fijinum Dam – 8 killed. A little mentioned event that killed people, unlike Fukushima.

Earthquake and tsunami – 18000+ killed
Dam failure – 8 killed
Nuclear power plant failure – 0 killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujinuma_Dam

Sayano-Shushenskaya – 75 killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_power_station_accident

Bombing german hydro dams in WW2 – 1700 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise#Bomb_damage_assessment

Vajont Dam – 2000 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

So there you have everything from natural disasters, acts of war/terrorism, engineering faults, mechanical faults, man made errors and geological faults.

Should we stop using hydro just because it’s extremely more dangerous than nuclear? No because the benefit is way larger than the risk. And the options of coal, gas and oil kills so many more it’s almost ridiculous that we actually use it.

Stephen

What we should be happy about here, instead of arguing, is that a major car manufacturer has published data compiled by a reputable organization showing that an EV version of an ICE vehicle is clearly less CO2 emitting for the average EU citizen. Time for the trolls to shut up.

mr. M

Yes, that’s the main point.