Mercedes Exec: World Will Drive Hydrogen Not Battery Electric By 2040

3 weeks ago by Steven Loveday 86

Mercedes EQA

Mercedes EQA at CES 2018 (Image Credit: Tom Moloughney/InsideEVs)

Several automakers in India, including Mercedes-Benz, are pushing back against the country’s plan to force the auto industry to all-electric by 2030.

Siam already made hints that it may not intend to make the switch to electrification, and surely not all-electric. Maruti Suzuki is in the process of surveying the market to decide if electric vehicles are viable. However, the most significant and strong-willed opposition came from the lips a Mercedes exec.


Mercedes-AMG Project ONE

Reports assert that Mercedes has requested the government “not to rush with the all-electric vehicles push” and allow time for a global energy shift to hydrogen. The automaker believes that mandated electric cars could “foreclose better technological options.” Mercedes-Benz India managing director and CEO Roland Folger said:

“By 2040, the whole world will be driving home hydrogen cars. To me, the whole plan to go electric nationwide looks like a rushed with idea.” 

Mercedes has publicized that a nationwide electrification of the automotive industry in India is not viable. The belief is that it doesn’t have the guaranteed potential for commercial success and the technology is far from where it needs to be to overtake ICE cars. Not to mention significant concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure.

Industry experts were shocked when India initially announced plans for the mandate. It turns out that many also cited other technologies like hydrogen as having greater potential. Mandating only all-electric vehicles could put an unnecessary damper on automakers that are exploring the possibility of other technologies. Folger continued:

“Ideally, regulators and policymakers should be totally aligned with what’s happening on the technology front because 5-10 years is a short period in the auto landscape. The least policymakers can do is to take the auto industry into confidence.


Teaser Of New Mercedes Sprinter

… what will happen to the investments already made in other technologies? Our planners should know that over the next two decades or so the whole world will be driving hydrogen cars and not electric cars.

Can the government invest hundreds of billions of dollars into setting up charging stations and associated infrastructure? If not, then who will foot the bill? Definitely not the private sector. If at all government manages to raise funds, is it worth the effort in terms of meeting the key objective of bringing down pollution?”

Folger also went so far as to say that the move to electric vehicles would create problematic power demands, which would lead to the need for more power plants and increased pollution. He explained:

“Yes, with the current coal-based power generation model, this would be more polluting as demand for electricity will jump manifold. Or do we have the finances to upgrade all our old thermal plants? Or can we go completely off polluting coal plants? If yes, what is the cost that such a plan will entail?”

Interestingly, however, the exec suggested that plug-in hybrids may be a viable option. He pointed out that this will create less need for charging infrastructure, and the cars are ultimately less expensive than pure EVs. Nonetheless, in his opinion, it will only be a temporary fix on the way to a hydrogen-powered planet.

Source: The Economic Times

Tags: ,

86 responses to "Mercedes Exec: World Will Drive Hydrogen Not Battery Electric By 2040"

  1. RaVOLT says:

    The synic in me sees the commentary basing the advantage of H2 FC on the use of Coal as a source of electricity for EVs. So, how are the H2 molecules going to be produced ? Electricity from? Or will it be splitting fossil fuels to maintain current business models? The current hopeful technology uses polymers in sunlight. Why waste energy shipping H2 when it can be converted to electrons on demand at a centralised FC and passed by power lines? The future is looking more sensible on the new business trade model on renewables of PVs, wind, solar thermal, tidal and wave. H2 could be exported from renewable energy rich countries like Iceland, Norway, Nort Africa, USA and Australia etc just as LPG is done today. No, H2 for cars is an old business model desperately trying to be relevant.

    1. mx says:

      Yes. As they’ll need to split methane to get the hydrogen, using electricity, this “solution” will always be more expensive than an EV. So, it will fail. — Economics.

      Clearly, the CEO of MB needs to check current market conditions. Electric generation and battery storage on the grid are now cheaper than natural gas.

      If you didn’t know that, you’d think hydrogen would be a solution. But, all new energy generation will now be Solar/Wind/Battery because of the rapid grid response times of batteries.

      In the future, there will be no natural gas surplus to generate hydrogen, as investment in natural gas dries up.

      1. Six Electrics says:

        The future of energy is renewable H2 generated from solar and wind powered electrolysis of water. Renewable energy is so cheap (practically free) that marginal storage costs and refueling rates dominate over capture efficiency.

        Your head needs to be cleared of propaganda blown in there by Big Battery interests, namely Elon. Skate to where the pick will be, not where it is. This site is such an ideological echo chamber.

        1. Djoni says:

          Seems that for a guy who pretend driving 6 electric cars now, doesn’t see clearly that the future already happened.

        2. cros13 says:

          Even if H2 is free, distribution alone is more expensive and lossy (not to mention not built yet and possessing it’s own engineering challenges… unlike the electricity grid).
          Then there are the other inherent disadvantages of fuel cell vehicles, for example you’d be unable to feed powerful electric motors without a buffer battery much larger than current FCVs have or a buffer battery chemistry able to discharge at an enormous rate. Then you have to include the additional costs due to increased complexity, large quantities valuable platinum group metals in the fuel cell stack and the additional weight of your high discharge buffer battery.
          Then there’s the storage issue. Storing H2 at 700 bar pressure is an enormous engineering challenge. Toyota used COPV vessels of a similar style funnily enough to SpaceX’s COPV pressurisation tank that NASA just told them not to use on manned flights. The alternative for automotive is very heavy steel tanks.

          I work as an engineer and I have experience with H2 for remote power in the defence sector and backup power for datacenter applications.
          One of the first things the engineers who trained me taught me was to ask what problem am I solving, how have others solved it, what is currently meeting those needs, what solutions can I come up with and how well do those solutions meet the requirement.
          By that standard H2 fuel cells are worse in every measure than current combustion vehicles, let alone EVs.

          1. Brandon says:

            Good stuff. Thanks for sharing!!

          2. agzand says:

            You can make hydrogen on-site. There is no distribution. You just need water and electricity. A hydrogen station can make their hydrogen using grid or renewable energy.

            1. earl colby pottinger says:

              And use three time the electric that just send the power to BEVs would need.

              And electric it NOT FREE!

              So you are talking about spent three times to cost for the same mileage.

            2. JoeInTheUk says:

              If you can make H2 on site because “all you need is water and electricity”, well guess what, then you have electricity, so forget the water and then you can fuel 3x as many cars from the electricity directly (and without complex dangerous machines)

              1. agzand says:

                You cannot store electricity cheaply, you can store hydrogen in a $50 tank.

                1. $50 for an insulated tank to store compressed Hydrogen at 5000 or 10000 psi??? What else is on sale today, I’ll take that new $1000 Model S.

                2. JoeInTheUK says:

                  Is the zero not working in your keyboard? You can maybe store it in a $5,000 tank (after you compressed using a $5,000 compressor, did you think it just jumped in there by itself? ).
                  This is aside you’ve just given everyone free reign to build a large bomb at home, makes natural gas look like child’s play.

            3. Get Real says:

              Guess what troll, you can ALSO make electricity on site and with that energy directly into your PEV you get to go 3 TIMES AS FAR as if you wasted it on making inefficient H2.

              Guess what is cheaper?

              And guess what, cheaper always wins in the end.

          3. SJC says:

            The hydrogen is made and the point of fueling using renewable energy contracts. There is no storage nor piping necessary. This should be obvious.

            1. przemo_li says:

              It is, do long as you further ask the physics.

              Hydrogen, needs either low temperature or high pressure to fit into tank small enough to fit into car.

              Neither will work with just-in-time production.

              Storage is unavoidable, aldi because its more sound economically to produce that hydrogen in smaller w quantities but through out a day then to install much bigger transforming installation that meets peak demand.

              And all that assume you will find enough suckers to buy that hydrogen are 4-5 times off what EV driver is parting per 100miles/km. Not only electricity do not need transformer hardware, storage and compressor, whole “station”, is much smaller and order of magnitude cheaper. Add costs of electricity and water fit input….

              Look for big sucker…

        3. mx says:

          Investors don’t invest in expensive solutions.
          They invest in the least expensive solution: solar/wind/Battery because you Make the Most Money vs. your competition.

          Hydrogen solution is now just a science project.

          1. mx says:

            But his is right, in the short term, it’s cheaper to build Chevy VOLT like solutions. Smaller battery. Most bang for the buck.

            And MB not pushing to be leader here either.

        4. Mint says:

          And why do you think it makes sense to use wind and solar to produce hydrogen instead of using it to cut down coal usage?

          Take 1000kWh of renewable energy. Put 900 kWh into H2 production, and you get 18 kg of H2 (best case), and then use the other 100kWh to transport and compress it. Put it in a Mirai, and you drive 1200 miles.

          Now instead, take 350 kWh of renewable energy, and transmit it to a house, leaving 330kWh. Put that in a Model 3, and it’ll drive 1250 miles.
          Use the remaining 650kWh to displace 600kg of CO2 from coal.

          Get it yet?

        5. Anthony Williams says:

          That surplus energy could just as easily be stored in batteries for electric cars st lower cost and higher efficiency.

    2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      “H2 could be exported from renewable energy rich countries like Iceland, Norway, Nort Africa, USA and Australia etc just as LPG is done today”

      Once you have liquified H2 shipped, why not use H2 directly in the cars? It is faster to refuel and doesn’t depend on reliability and high power of electric grid, and ability to electrify parking places.

      In many parts of India reliable electric grid doesn’t exist. Backup generators running for hours daily is common feature. Cars that can be refueled are just cheaper and more reliable in such circumstances.

      Neither does India has credible plan to replace all coal powered electricity. Replace smaller part of it at daytime with solar, sure. As long as coal plants can modulate power daily – they often can’t.
      All of it, wait for magic cheap batteries to be invented. They just can’t afford Energiewende with its 30 eurocent/kWh electricity like Germany. At such cost all kinds of bikes would be way more sensible transportation for 1.3 billion population.

      1. mx says:

        Well, it won’t be shipped.
        The energy needed to liquify H2 will be directly used to fuel an EV Fleet.

        Think about it.
        Electric distribution is with wire.
        H2 distribution is with pressurized tanker truck.
        Which is cheaper.
        H2 will go nowhere in the market.
        — Economics.

    3. Peter says:

      The auto industri are fighting to keep there money making model intact. They don’t give a sh** about the problems that they creat.
      Hydrogen is just a excuse to postpone the only good thing for customers BEVs at a low cost and almost no service and no money to the oilmaffia. China will take that market and the EU carmaker will loose.

      1. Get Real says:

        LMFAO, the usual shills, shorters and haters are all popping in to reinforce their serial FUD against PEVs and especially against Tesla as the leader in promoting compelling PEVS.

        Coincidence that 6 Fool Cells/shorts zzzzzz and his little mouse all chime in at once, I don’t think so.

        Look, the decision (while shaped by the basic limitations on H2 by physics) is always going to be based on economics.

        Economics will always follow efficiency and with that BEV is already the clear winner and as battery tech evolves/improves–their advantages of inefficient H2 simply grows and grows.

        The other issue here is on who makes the money.

        Big Oil companies want to keep their current business model based on rent seeking and the model of PEVs circumvents that by allowing people to create their own, very low cost energy through solar pv and put it directly as fuel into their PEVs and this cuts out the middle man (Big Oil).

        Of course most people use the grid and with RE quickly becoming by far the cheapest source of energy, that spells doom for fossil fuel based energy via the grid.

        In developing countries, they will increasingly go for the even more efficient/less costly microgrid approach based on solar to directly power PEVs.

        So guess what, PEVS plus RE wins in literally every scenario.

        Now, the rent-seeking fossil fuel interests would like (and have started to in some cases-by capturing the government) get the taxpayers to pay the STAGGERING subsidies for their H2 distribution networks (well, we already pay staggering subsidies for fossil fuels). Somewhat like the Rick Perry proposal to heavily subsidize coal and nuclear power recently shot down.

        The grid however doesn’t have these same costs because it already exists and with modest expansions is already being set to efficiently supply the increasingly cheap RE to power PEVS.

        Now, if I were to see Big Oil companies actually PAY FOR AND BUILD OUT these H2 networks to support their rent-seeking dreams of the future then we could have an argument on who wins but even this is not happening and in 10 years it won’t even matter BTW.

        RE plus PEVS win despite Big Oil and their captured politics like the Repugnicans/Trumpster and the shrill shills here.

    4. Rhaman68 says:

      Hi RaVolt. Good detailed answer. Thanks. BTW, it is “cynical” with a “c.” Go electric!

  2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “By 2040, the whole world will be driving home hydrogen cars.”

    I look forward to the Mercedes exec explaining how they’re going to overcome the limitations imposed by physics, basic economics, and the Laws of Thermodynamics. /snark

    And I wonder how many Mercedes engineers did a facepalm upon hearing what this idiot said.

    1. Lamata says:

      Idiot to be Sure! ++++

    2. M hovis says:

      That’s right Pushi. The argument really should end with the physics, but for those who can’t see the economics of the reformation, take a look at the infrastructure alone.

      “Can the government invest hundreds of billions of dollars into setting up charging stations and associated infrastructure? If not, then who will foot the bill? Definitely not the private sector.”

      The same guy who says governments should not pay X for EV infrastructure will have to lobby for 100X to build a hydrogen infrastructure. You could subsidize staggering amounts of tax dollars for a hydrogen corridor along major interstates, but you can never have the same coverage afforded by gasoline. There is another reason you can’t have the same success that gasoline had and that is the fact that other players are involved. Hydrogen, like EVs, have to compete with gasoline and others. As for EVs, some of us DO understand the physics and we are never going back or converting to hydrogen, so there is that…

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Disagree here Mark. Although these dates have a tendency to ‘slip into the future’ (2070, etc) since people always want to believe technological advances happen faster than they actually do, I don’t see anything basically wrong with H2 cars other than they are premature for the technology of the time (currently dispensory costs are at least $3/kg and reliabilty of the compressors is low, complicated by the fact that reciprocating units cannot be practically used due to the near impossibility currently of filtering out the blow-by in the compressed H2).

        I see the situation basically as Charles Babbage’s ‘Difference Engine’ (the world’s FIRST programmable computer) Which was never built (although I think it would have basically worked), but he couldn’t convince any gov’t for the cost/benefit of it.

        His problem was there wasn’t a world war going on at the time to justify any cost.

        I expect by 2070 there will be at least some solar-powered direct photo-synthesis which will efficiently manufacture H2, or else by this time perhaps safer Nuclear Plants will, by their operating temperature, dissociate water directly from the heat.

        People like pushi say it violates either ‘physics’ (I’m surprised he knows how to spell the word let alone what it means) – or else the 2nd law of thermodynamics – something he is totally clueless about.

        Doubt that? Ask him how current hydrogen products that actually work violate any laws.

        Its obvious they don’t since the head of CARB violates them every day.

        1. earl colby pottinger says:

          The problem is unless you are directly converting water to produce the hydrogen the exact same power can be sent thru the power line a charge BEVs directly.

          There is some new developments using concentrated solar to heat the water before spiting it, but instead of the present 3 to 1 advantage BEVs have over hydrogen production you now have got it down to 2 to 1. But those system are still experimental and you are still better of charging the battery cars directly.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Neither method of H2 production I mentioned used ANY electricity at all.

            1. Mint says:

              If you’re using nuclear power for H2 synthesis, you’re not using it for electricity generation.

              If you set up a plant to generate H2 from sunlight directly, you’re not using that sunlight and capital to generate electricity.

              It’s misleading to say no electricity is used.

              What’s more is battery technology won’t sit still in that time. H2 is better suited to displace natural gas than gasoline or EVs, IMO.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Uh, chief: two things.

                1). The sun is prolific…… Yes you cannot simultaneously use THE EXACT SAME square footage for a solar PV plant AND a future synthetic photosynthesis plant.

                But last I checked there are a few square feet available for exploitation of solar incident radiation left on earth.

                2). Since current ‘low temperature’ (inefficient) Nuclear plants make use of only around a 1/3 rd or less of the fissioning heat content, there is heat and efficiency to spare.

                Russia (in the lead in Breeder Technology) has shown with the world’s only Commercially operating multiple Breeder Reactors that this will have at least an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE of REDUCTION of Urainium usage, plus similar decreases of radioactive waste generation at least an order of magnitude less, – almost 2 orders of magnitude less.

                Now I’m not a big fan of commonly used Nuclear Technology, viewing it as still too dangerous for common use. But 50 years from now will likely see technology advancement, possibly to the point where it could be worth using in certain circumstances.

        2. M hovis says:

          It OK Bill, we can agree to disagree here since both of us have no clue. I will stand by my argument. I don’t think I used the word impossible though I will argue that it is improbable that you could ever expect to see a hydrogen station everywhere you find a gasoline station today. Now in fairness with autonomous drive, you want need a station as often in that you can send you vehicle after fuel.

          If you by chance have followed my past statements on this I have always accepted hydrogen as a range extender which IMO they should have started there like Chevrolet did with the Volt.

          My big issue with hydrogen is big oil. I know you are not keen to accept that two gases that form asymmetric compounds trap heat when exposed to infrared radiation (8th grade science experiment), but I hope you do believe your cardiologist and your pulmonologist when they tell your that the burning of fossil fuels produce a particulate matter that can enter your blood stream and shorten your life. The fact is, that is how hydrogen is going to be reformed for a long time and hence my distaste.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Mark if you want to call yourself dumb (I wouldn’t) its a free country, or at least, so they say.

            But please don’t include me, I read enough Chemical Journals to keep abrest of current technology.

    3. Six Electrics says:

      If hydrogen cars violated the laws of physics, they would not run. However, there are several thousand of them operating in California as we speak. So clearly, this argument is BS.

      I think you’re trying to make an economic argument, but it is weak: new technologies are always costly, then drop in price over time. I could have well said ten years ago that “batteries will never be cheap and light enough for cars because of the laws of physics” but that would just have been simplistic FUD.

      Fact is, the jaw dropping decrease in the cost of renewables presents a compelling case for distributed generation of clean hydrogen via electrolysis. I expect every existing gas station to generate their own hydrogen from water in the future, using power from the wind and solar of their neighbors.

      1. dinhh68 says:

        same has you can never travel the speed of light but you can travel “near” the speed of light. it’s physics btw

      2. TomSJ says:

        FCEV obviously does not violate any law of physics otherwise it would not work – agreed.

        However, it defies the rules of common sense and economics in term of absolute efficiency. FCEV is like a zig-zag line connecting 2 points between power generation and the vehicle whereas BEV is a straight line. No matter how much FCEV technology is improved, it can never be as efficient as BEV.

      3. Gasbag says:

        Several thousand in CA as we speak? Online definition of several says more than 2 but less than many. There are in fact 2 thousand FCEVs in CA . Our first clarity FCs arrived in 2008 the same year our first Tesla’s arrived. CA added about 100,000 plugins last year alone.

        So India doesn’t have the money for electric infrastructure but they will have even more required for H infrastructure?

        Ok so he sees a H future based on cheap renewable energy. Those FCEVs in CA all have 100% electric drive trains. It makes sense for them to convert now to 100% DT and simply go EREV or serial hybrid. If/when H FCs are ready you simply swap ice for FC. if batteries continue to advance faster than than FCs then you simply increase battery capacity. They could cost effectively offer both to the customers and let them decide. That would of course require that they drop their religion.

      4. Get Real says:

        LMAO, serial anti-Tesla troll 6 fool cells/Tesla shorts points out that their are about 2,000 COMPLETELY SUBSIDIZED fool cell cars in California being fueled by COMPLETELY SUBSIDIZED fuel and filling stations!

        Meanwhile with the Tesla Model 3 leading the say, California will get close to 5% of its total car sales being PEVS within a year.

        1. Gasbag says:

          Good point about the subsidies. Roughly 100% of FC LDVs in CA are leased and will be reclaimed and crushed to avoid the liability of having to support them.

          You are wrong about CA teaching 5% of new car sales next year. We reached 5% PEVs last year and would be expected to surpass 10% next year or possibly late this year. I think you may mean 5% pure BEVs.

          1. Get Real says:

            Yes, I was referring to pure BEVs, not PHEVs.

    4. dinhh68 says:

      ICE engineers will be too busy sending out their resumes

    5. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

      This MB “official” should go to the next MB shareholders assembly and say this to all of them…The result should be…interesting and…the laughing of Chinese car makers officials at the scale of China market!

  3. Nichen says:

    I think there is room for hydrogen powered vehicles by 2040 as well as second generation biofuels such as biodiesel from algae. But I think we should put our main goal on producing as many BEVs as possible. Remember…batteries are recyclable.

    1. mx says:

      As electric vehicles have no heat signature, electrics will be moved into the military too.

      1. earl colby pottinger says:

        They are not 100% efficient, so there is still a heat output, it is just a lot less then ICE.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          That’s a broad Myopic generalization. It assumes the charge/discharge cycle of the battery and electronics is 100% efficient which it is no where near, that the battery never has to be heated in the winter or cooled in the summer, and that there is no expense of getting the electricity to the side of the car in the first place.

          There were times this winter during 0 deg F weather when my BOLT ev used exactly TEN TIMES the amount of juice from the wall outlet per mile as it would have driving it the same way during the spring and fall.

          Even in this relatively low-priced electric area, the car at times is pricey to run compared to say a VOLT or Prius Prime.

    2. gabriel var says:

      I soon the next generation of battery arrive(solid state or other), any eford of Hydrogen will be dead

  4. WadeTyhon says:

    Mercedes? No wai! They have SO MANY EVs on the market that sell super well. *rolls eyes*

    Nice to see that Mercedes has so much faith in electric cars. =_=

    More proof to me that the Smart car brand “all-electric” push was just because they needed the BEV for CARB and they have no other on the market now that they’re killing the Mercedes B250e.

    As a brand, Smart is effectively dead in the US. The electric models are hanging on only until Mercedes no longer needs them.

    1. Lamata says:

      “COMPLIANCE” That is the Only reason These BOZO’s are building any EV’s At all!

      1. marc says:

        and whats the reason they invested in tesla?

        1. Clive says:

          Elon asked them to.

  5. Noob says:

    As a consumer, why would I go to a hydrogen filling station and pay to fill my car….when the alternative is to generate my own electricity at home? Technology that exists right now! Mercedes are way out of touch on this one.

    1. terminaltrip421 says:

      this + there’s absolutely no way there isn’t at least one battery breakthrough by then. I don’t tend to think of scientific researches as fond of hyperbole and virtually all research bears the word ‘promising’ when published. not to mention the legitimate breakthroughs that have already transpired.

      I’m not talking about those with a monetary tie-in, I’m talking professional academics.

  6. terminaltrip421 says:

    dude is clearly huffing fossil fuel fumes.

    leave alone all of his other baseless arguments; how can he argue against the perils of expanding the infrastructure of electric vehicles as though they won’t exist in the same for for hydrogen?

    I would argue that if one were to say that electric grids would need to be upgraded to meet the greater demand that the same could be said for any substantial population or infrastructure growth. we know that adding substantial renewables to the grid requires tweaks and unless india wants to be buried in smog and premature death and illness that’s a bullet they’re going to have to bite sooner or later anyway.

    1. mx says:

      It clearly looks like there’s a fossil fuel Bribery slush fund.
      Because, at this point only an idiot would still be pushing hydrogen. As these guys aren’t stupid, they must be paid to sound stupid.

  7. Benz says:

    Batteries have the disadvantage of being heavy.

    But that disadvantage will be minimized during the next decade.

    BEV car models will become very popular during the next decade.

    About 50% of all cars sold in 2030 will be BEV.

    At the moment I am still puzzled how Tesla will manage to put a 200 kWh battery pack in the new Tesla Roadster?

    1. The future is here for all electric car,trucks, plane’s train or ship’s, with the new super electric from Foxçon int’l system nonstop self charging system with just one battery you are sure to go 24/7 so Benz get in on it

    2. mx says:

      Musk has knowledge of what’s in Tesla’s battery lab, and we don’t.

  8. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

    If your CEO is worried about electricity generation in a world with hundreds of millions of very large batteries, your CEO needs to be briefed by your CTO.

  9. Lou Grinzo says:

    Clearly, the first thing Mercedes should do it stop paying Bob Lutz to be a consultant.

    1. Daniel says:

      Good one bro!

  10. Didier says:

    RIP Mercedes,

    the future may be electric cars, electric buses, (electric)bikes, etc. But not ICE cars !

    And Mercedes only produces ICE cars, and it seems that all what they said about future electric cars is a lie. The hydrogen speech is just a way to say “later”, and in the meantime they have ICE car, or eventually ICE car with generative braking to save a few percentage of fuel and pollution… But Mercedes & co will pay for this felony since when Tesla will be producing 500 000 model 3 per year, including the batteries, it will be too late.

    Anyway, who drives Mercedes cars nowadays ? Corrupted politicians, dictators, dealers…

    1. pjwood1 says:

      To echo this a bit, and spell it out, these guys, and the auto-industry at large, are just upset because they’re losing their grip on policy. They don’t even own policy in Europe any more.

      RE: “coal based”
      “India’s electricity sector is dominated by fossil fuels, and in particular coal, which in 2016 produced about two thirds of all electricity. ”

      At 2/3rds coal, an EV already beats gas powered cars with CO2. As EPA stickers in the US put it, an average like “33KWh per 100 miles” translates into about .44lb/mile (coal=2,000lb/MWh, *.66/1000*3 miles each kwh). Since, low and behold, Mercedes offers no compelling hydrogen solution, we have to compare with their gas cars. You already have to beat 40mpgs, to do better with a gas car than India’s “coal-based” electricity. The environment needs to survive these arguments, for other pollutants, too, but here we go again, with the hair-on-fire “COAL” thing.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        Also, consider what’s happening in India as it’s now rapidly expanding renewables and canceling planned coal power plants.

        India has a lot of coal reserves, but is currently depending on imported coal and that’s contributing to coal bid prices being higher than renewables.

  11. Fran says:

    Wasn’t the Hindenburg filled with hydrogen? Just sayin…

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Not meaningfully: The hindenburg catastropically failed irrespective of the H2 in it. It would have been just as horrific a fire had it been levitated by helium instead..

      The big fire was burning Boron and Aluminum, what Nasa used to use in solid fuel rocket boosters. The Zepulan Company figured this out immediately and made changes to prevent future sparking, but never publically mentioned it as long as everyone at the time believed that H2 was generically at fault since they didn’t want the lawsuits.

  12. Osagiator Atekha, 234835063545

  13. Big Show says:

    The key phrase here is “not to rush”. Billions of dollars of profit can be made for auto manufacturers and their fossil fuel cronies, for every year we delay getting off oil.

  14. Tahoe Bear says:

    Why are these powerful and well-paid auto executives so dense?
    It’s becoming crystal clear that were it not for Elon and JB and Tesla, the advent of EVs would’ve been decades later if not a hundred years later.

    1. silversod says:

      It must be a case of who you know & not what you know that gets these people top jobs.

  15. ATX Leaf says:

    I’m surprised. I thought he would say, “By 2040, the whole world will be driving home DIESEL cars.”

  16. ffbj says:

    A pail of sheep dip.

  17. JR says:

    I seems like something is going on behind the curtain, more car manufacture wants to produce Hydrogen cars, I think somebody is interested in keeping the existing car infrastructure with gas stations being the only place to fill up your car.

    1. menorman says:

      Now why would they do that?

    2. earl colby pottinger says:

      But none want to build the fueling stations.

  18. menorman says:

    Mercedes Exec: World Will Drive Hydrogen Not Battery Electric By 2040

    Also Mercedes Exec: We Will Not Be In Business By 2040

  19. Serial anti tesla troll thomas says:

    Luckily batteries are 100% bio

  20. Get Real says:

    Speaking of trolls!

  21. Jason says:

    Just a quick search of some of the auto manufacturers profits in 2016:
    Mercedes Benz €8.8bn
    GM US$1.1bn
    Volkswagen $5.5bn
    Ford $4.5bn

    As a society, maybe we tell these companies that they have 5-10yrs to transition to zero emission vehicles, how ever that might be. They have absolutely huge profits to work with, so if they think H2 is the answer then get on and make those vehicles, if they think BEV is the answer then get on and make those vehicles. If it is something else, great but come 2025-2030 all ICE powered vehicles are banned, world wide.
    So share holders lose a bit of profit during this period, it is easy to see there would be $10-20bn globally, every year, just in the auto manufacturers alone. That doesn’t affect their dealerships and it doesn’t affect the new car price as it is the profit that is being diverted into R&D.
    I doubt the world can do this, but it is obscene amounts of profit that could be directed into a global solution in a very short time frame.

  22. Kdawg says:

    “Can the government invest hundreds of billions of dollars into setting up charging stations and associated infrastructure?”
    Since when would it take hundreds of billions to install a charging infrastructure? Totally fabricated #.

  23. JON G JONSSON says:

    Hydrogen is “10 years away”. The problem is that since I was a boy, I was told it is “10 years away”. China and India are coughing their lungs out, we have run out of “10 years away”. SORRY!

  24. Don Zenga says:

    Mercedes Benz is a real villain and its CEO should be asked to stand outside in the Delhi (Indian capital) pollution. After 1 or 2 hours, he will end up in hospital and he should be discharged only if he promises not to oppose the electric vehicles.

    Hydrogen is nowhere near reality with less than 10,000 vehicles on World’s roads while 3 million plugins are already there with sales accelerating.

  25. Mercedes 2019 model do not buy hydrogen says:

    Mercedes 2019 model -do not support or buy Mercedes -they are clearly motivated financially to promote hydrogen power – buy another brand that believes in electric vehicles powered by battery.
    Mercedes and some other cars have a vested financial interest in shoving hydrogen powered cards into your face. Reject that offer, and let Mercedes think about their motives a little

Leave a Reply