back to article I'LL BE BATT: Arnie Schwarzenegger snubs gas guzzlers for electric

Former bodybuilder, movie star and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone electric. The current star of Celebrity Apprentice, Arnie just popped over to his home country of Austria to pick up a custom Mercedes G-Class that had been fitted out with a powerful electric motor. In just the latest of a lifetime of …

  1. Filippo Silver badge

    "Electric car specialists Kreisel Electric claim the electrified Mercedes G350D comes with a 300-km (185-mile) range and a maximum speed of 183km/hr (114 mi/hr). It can be charged to 80 per cent of its capacity in just 25 minutes and will go from 0 to 100km/hr (62mi/hr) in just 5.6 seconds. In each case, this beats the original gas-powered version of the vehicle."

    In each case this beats...? Are they saying that the original gas-powered version of the vehicle had less than 300km range and took over 25 minutes to have its tank filled to 80% capacity?

    Wait. This is a case of alternative facts, right?

    1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      I think you're right. Theres 4 facts there : range, max speed, acceleration , charge time.

      first google result on g350d is:

      Power for the G350d is provided by a 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6 engine that generates 245 horsepower at 3,600 rpm and a robust 442 pound-feet of torque from 1,600 to 2,400 rpm. Mercedes points out its newest SUV can hit 60 mph from a stop in 8.8 seconds, and go on to a top speed of 100 mph.

      So thats 2 wins for the fossil fuel eater. Further googling reveal;s it costs 90k! , has 96L (21gal) tank, combined mpg 28.5. - giving a range of 598 miles. . (thats 3 strikes)

      Like flipppo I'm gonna assume it takes less than 25 mins to fill the tank. so thats 4 out of 4 lies.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        right Ive had 2 coffees and a coke now . im awake . i was talking shit in the above comment

        1. hatti

          Only 2 coffees?!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Only 1 line of coke?!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Somewhere I read a 138 mph top speed. 100 mph looks very little for a 6V turbocharged 245hp car, even one heavy and square like this.

        Anyway, despite the size of Arnie, that's not the car you should use but really when you have to reach destination in the middle of nowhere. Unless and until Americans (including those from Austria) understand "smaller" - and not "bigger" - is better, they will just waste resources just to move around useless weights against useless friction.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Is your maths right?

        Top speed : petrol 160 kph, electric 183 kph = electric wins

        0-100 kph : petrol 8.8 sec, electric 5.6 sec = electric wins

        But range and filling times do favour the older technology

        1. Mark 65

          Re: Is your maths right?

          Top speed of a G350D (D for Diesel) is 192 km/h, which beats 183 in my book. Acceleration slower as expected but range somewhat better.

          http://www.mercedes-benz.com.au/content/australia/mpc/mpc_australia__website/en/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/g-class/_w463_crosscountry/facts_/technicaldata/models.html

    2. S4qFBxkFFg
      Joke

      @Filippo

      Agreed re. range, but they must be comparing the charging time to the time it would take to reverse the diesel burning chemical reaction.

      Not sure how long it takes to convert H2O + CO2 to O2 + C12H23, but I'm willing to bet it's longer than 25mins at any reasonable cost.

  2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Difficult to blame him

    He is a politician and AFAIK he has done business school remotely.

    You give someone like him two options one a few tens of M, the other north of 1Bn. The choice does not need guessing. By the way, the money the leccy utility is asking for charging stations is ridiculous. End of the day they will be getting revenue from every single one of them (probably at a premium compared to you @home tariff).

    1. Anonymous Blowhard

      Re: Difficult to blame him

      "End of the day they will be getting revenue from every single one of them (probably at a premium compared to you @home tariff)"

      Revenue is not profit; based on electricity prices I can't see that the electricity companies are going to make much profit from this investment. Add to that the scenario where many owners will just charge their vehicles at home and/or at work (not an option for most owners of internal combustion powered vehicles) and there doesn't seem to be much incentive for them to pay for this.

      The vehicle manufacturers have the most to lose in this, without a charging infrastructure they can't convince some people to swap to electric; whether this is a big impact on the potential market or not is something for analysts to look into (i.e. if you can charge your car every night at home, how many times would you need to charge elsewhere?).

      If, or when, electric becomes common for commercial vehicles then there would be another use-case for public charging; this might involve truck stops where patrons can charge their vehicle whilst they have a meal, so the charging time is less of an issue for the user. Similarly motels can install charging points and add the cost on to the bill; so the motel has an additional selling point.

      At the end of the day, I can't see public charging points working like the current-day gas station, where you stop for five minutes and the profit on the fuel is significant to the operator; the future is more likely to be that the charging point is an additional service that adds to an existing business. McCharge anyone?

      1. tiggity Silver badge

        Re: Difficult to blame him

        Profit model could be linked to speed of charging (or lack thereof).

        If manufacturers standardised on battery dimensions, acceptable output range,connections etc and these were easily swappable then electric car users could have fast option of battery exchange at a filling station, ideal for long distance trips where just want to "fill up" and be on your way.

        But standards unlikely anytime soon in such a nascent market.

        1. fishman

          Re: Difficult to blame him

          "and these were easily swappable then electric car users could have fast option of battery exchange at a filling station"

          Easily swappable = easily stealable.

          1. Cynic_999

            Re: Difficult to blame him

            "

            Easily swappable = easily stealable.

            "

            Why? Simple enough to put a lock on them, just like a petrol cap. A battery is heavy and would probably require hefty equipment to remove quickly, unlike petrol that requires only a can and a hose to steal. Not to mention that it would be trivial to rig it to set off an alarm (powered by a small auxiliary battery) when removed.

  3. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Taxed Enough Already

    If a technology cannot stand on its own in the private sector, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way to bankruptcy.

    To *HELL* with public subsidies of UBER-EXPENSIVE CARS for "the rich", at the expense of "average joe" taxpayer.

    Gasoline is liquid energy. Gasoline cars GO FARTHER, "recharge" faster, and are a proven technology that is over 100 years old. Current tech makes them _extermely_ clean, and Cali-Fornicate-You already requires bi-annual "smog checks" which take up time and partially burn up your rear brakes [if you have an older car like me that goes on the dyno].

    And we already know what happens if your electric car catches on fire. The Fire Department isn't so sure of how to put it out, what effects water will have on it, and so on. It's basically a class D fire that COULD explode if you use standard firefighting techniques.

    Anyway, when car makers get PAID to produce these electric vehicles so that PEOPLE WEALTHIER THAN ME can "afford" them, using TAX MONEY that *I* was FORCED to pay, I get VERY irritated...

    and paying for all of those CHARGING STATIONS TOO??? yeah, right. [stoopid gummint]

    1. caffeine addict

      Re: Taxed Enough Already

      Someone mistakenly drank high-octane coffee this morning.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Taxed Enough Already

        "Someone mistakenly drank high-octane coffee this morning."

        no mistake. I like my morning QUAD cappucino!

        espresso-riffic!

        [need a coffee icon]

    2. Shady
      FAIL

      Re: Taxed Enough Already

      Global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015. The good ol' US of A subsidised $600 billion of that. Global renewable subsides were $88 billion in the same period.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

      1. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: Taxed Enough Already

        I fail to see why I as a non-driver should be taxed in order to subsidise the drivers of overgrown golf carts.

        Yet my income taxes go to fund them.

      2. The Axe
        FAIL

        Re: Taxed Enough Already

        @Shady: "Global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015. The good ol' US of A subsidised $600 billion of that. Global renewable subsides were $88 billion in the same period."

        Well done, mixing global and US subsidy figures to confuse the issue. Then not reading the Wiki article you link to which shows fossil fuel subsidy to be about $4b.. And I bet you think that a tax credit which all businesses get counts as a subsidy when applied by the Oil & Gas industry.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Taxed Enough Already

          @The Axe,

          And I bet you think that a tax credit which all businesses get counts as a subsidy when applied by the Oil & Gas industry.

          That is the only way the green lefties can make their point appear to be relevant when in fact it isn't.

        2. Shady

          Re: Taxed Enough Already

          The point I tried to make was that the spittle-speckled right wing screamers arguing against subsidies for renewables *think* that their oil is not, and never has been, subsidised by the government when it has in fact been subsidised for decades.

          The figure you quote excludes the cost of clearing up ones own shit, surely a social responsibility but one that is legally and immorally ignored and left to others. It's the cost to them that bumps up the apparent subsidy.

          The USA figure was provided to show the original commentor that his country of origin was among those subsidising fossil fuels to a great degree, contrary to his belief.

          I disagree with your argument that all industries benefit from fossil fuel subsidies - as an asthmatic, the NHS (and therefore, the UK taxpayer) bears the cost of the additional treatment I require to overcome the pollution I'm breathing in, and as a Cyclist, the manufacturer of my bike might sell a few more if petrol and diesel was sold at its true price even if they cost a little more to make - but this is a philosophical / economic argument beyond my ability to prove - probably one for Tim Worstall and Excel.

          And finally, I'm not a swivel eyed, green leftie, I'm fairly apolitical, I drive a dirty diesel car, and I don't drive it in a fuel efficient manner because it's much more fun to drive it quickly. I turn the heating up at home and stuff the cost because I wear as few clothes as possible, even in winter (I have autism, with sensory issues), and would, if I could afford one, drive a Huracan, and my wife would like an Aston Martin - yeah, I am a hypocrite, just like every other zealot (and most non-zealots).

          All I want is a clean, low pollution world, which we won't get anytime soon because of vested interests in dirty technology.

      3. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Taxed Enough Already

        "Global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015"

        THAT shouldn't happen, either. There should be NO! SUBSIDIES! AT! ALL! as far as I'm concerned. And tax rates should be FLAT. And gummint should be SMALL.

      4. joed

        Re: Taxed Enough Already

        "Global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015." - for better or worse these subsidies also cover fossils burned to power "clean" electric cars (and nuclear power has its own issues and requires as much if not more subsidies). It should be all about efficiency and the hypocrisy of pushing out bigger but supposedly cleaner vehicles is hard to defend (no matter the energy source) even if it looked great on a picture. In the end, the best way to boost efficiency is to avoid all subsidies (definitely for private enterprises). Simple, lean and - with any luck - green.

    3. Colin Tree

      Re: Taxed Enough Already

      Hi Bob,

      Remember man made extreme climate change.

      This is the end of the petroleum industry.

      Take a cold shower, suck it up, that party is over.

      Your choices will be, walk, cycle, public transport or solar/electric,

      take your pick.

      Just remember the stoopid gummint has historically subsidised petroleum, coal, etc.

      But yes I totally agree, users and profit makers pay, but the stoopid gummint could shift it's subsidies from petroleum/coal to solar/wind/etc electric.

      The change from petroleum to electric could be quite rapid if current cars can be efficiently retro fitted with electric.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Farday FF

    So they reckon that huge heavy lump of a car will be the worlds fastest accelerating road car?

    I think they have never heard of Ultima.....and you can buy them right now.

    "has recorded a road legal 0-60mph time of 2.3secs, 0-100mph of 4.9secs with 0-150mph taking a mere 8.9 seconds! It has the capability to accelerate onwards to over 240mph. "

    http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Evo/Coupe

    1. Lotaresco

      Re: Farday FF

      "has recorded a road legal 0-60mph time of 2.3secs, 0-100mph of 4.9secs with 0-150mph taking a mere 8.9 seconds! It has the capability to accelerate onwards to over 240mph. "

      And with the average driver of a Citroen Saxo with baked bean can exhaust, 'Lexus' lights, lowered suspension and italic script number plates at the wheel the Ultima can complete the last quarter mile backwards and on fire.

  5. Unep Eurobats
    Terminator

    'failed to drive down a walkway'

    I should hope so. That'll be the AI override kicking in then?

  6. Unep Eurobats
    Go

    'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

    Now that's the really attractive part and makes it viable as a long-distance vehicle. OK, I'm sure the world record for filling up with petrol is much quicker (if there is one), but it's still not too long to spend at a motorway service station.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

      but it's still not too long to spend at a motorway service station.

      It is. Petrol/Diesel queue increment is sub-5 minutes. It is even less in countries like Spain where it is customary to fuel up and move to the parking lot to free your slot before you pay. So even if you have to wait for 2-3 cars in front of you, you are still OK. Now imagine that re-factored for 25 minute wait. Now, refactor it further allowing for the occasional tw*t in a petrol BMW, Jag or RangeRover parking in the electric bay because it is closest to the station and they feel their privilege entitles them to it.

      So unless every parking slot in the service station parking lot has a charger and that charger is compatible with all cars this is a no go.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

        "It is. Petrol/Diesel queue increment is sub-5 minutes"

        You're right, and you have a valid point, but it will probably be much easier to equip, as you suggest, every parking slot with a charger.

        After all, some of the *big* advantages of electricity are that it doesn't spill on the pavement, nor catches fire: the safety measures needed for pump won't be needed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

          the safety measures needed for pump won't be needed.

          No, but you are playing with very high currents at voltages that are not exactly without danger either - setting up a safe distribution network will cost money too, which brings me to another point: overall infrastructure and power generation.

          Given the incredibly stupid way we generate power I am yet to be convinced we're on the right track to start talking about electro cars everywhere. The issue of mining materials and creating a lot of waste and needing a lot of power doesn't combine well with the way we generate power which either creates short term pollutants or long term, and the only approach that I can see that hits both those issues heads on as well as the safety aspect (thorium nuclear reactors) is actively avoided because it doesn't make stupidly large buckets of money afterwards for the happy few in fuel handling and waste storage, nor does it make anything useful to weaponise.

          Thorium is pretty much a waste product from rare earth mining, and in addition it needs some of that stuff that would be best stored under London's Houses of Parliament (it's got the right sort of clay - that's irony for you) and turns that nuclear waste in a far less dangerous substance too. In addition, you can model such a reactor to self-regulate and thus not be in need of complex, multi-layered failsafes when something goes wrong which also makes it much smaller (no need for massive domes to catch any radioactive steam when it pops a leak, and no complex failsafes as heat expansion regulates the amount of reaction and it thus self-stabilises).

          In other words, it's such a good fit to actual real-life requirements that nobody profits enough to buy their customary fleet of yachts on the back of it, which is why I can only see this happen in places like China (which may actually explain why they now process rare earth ore locally and only export the result). I know the Chinese are now actively looking at such development, and if they manage to get it going I suspect there will be a major shift in power use. The US has (AFAIK) not even started because of the aforementioned "I cannot buy any yachts off the back of it" problem which has created huge barriers to even get the research restarted..

          It's good that we look at electric cars, but if you don't follow the supply chain refit all the way back to where it starts (power generation) we're not really solving the problem.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

          After all, some of the *big* advantages of electricity are that it doesn't spill on the pavement, nor catches fire: the safety measures needed for pump won't be needed.

          Up to a point. Real fast charging requires of the order of 100kW or more, and would require in the region of 400-500V, 250A. Doing that across multiple vehicles concurrently won't be without some very interesting challenges. You might think you can make it safe, but I'd back the ingenious fools of the general public to find any problem, no matter how remote it might seem.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "safety measures needed for pump won't be needed."

          Just drop the charger in the water after an heavy rain....

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: "safety measures needed for pump won't be needed."

            Is the cost of recharging on the motorway via electricity going to attract as much of a premium as the petrol stations? I mean, ~110ppl at Tesco/Shell/ASDA at the local A41 filling points and ~135ppl at Watford Gap services. The only filling stations I've seen that are more expensive than motorway service stations are in South Kensington running around 136ppl.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "safety measures needed for pump won't be needed."

              Is the cost of recharging on the motorway via electricity going to attract as much of a premium as the petrol stations?

              As a minimum I would expect so. Most people recharging on the motorway are going to be high mileage business drivers for whom time is money, so they'll pay whatever they have to and put it through on expenses. The commercial incentive is to charge what the market will pay.

              Plus the underlying costs of network reinforcement to support fast charging will tend to be much higher due to the relatively remote locations of services, and there's other costs from the possible need for intermediate battery storage, and inevitable exposure to real time pricing against wholesale markets and DNO charging structures, all generally push costs upward. At the moment EVs are not common enough to need all those costly changes. When they are, I would guess that you'd be looking at double the current cost of £6 for half an hour's charge, maybe as much as three times.

              One argument then says "its only £18, much cheaper than the £70 to fill a petrol tank here". The alternative argument says "that's c40p per kWh, a complete rip off".

              This of course is before government introduce some new form of road taxes to keep bringing in the £35bn they extract from motorists today.

              1. Eddy Ito

                Re: "safety measures needed for pump won't be needed."

                Most people recharging on the motorway are going to be high mileage business drivers

                And there lies the problem. Electric charging infrastructure is essentially needed only by those few people who put serious miles on a car each day. How many customers are there going to be that can't make it from sunrise to sunset on a single charge? Folks don't hit petrol filling stations daily. For most it's more a weekly thing given a car with a range of a few hundred miles.

                Sure there's the long drive scenario but that's not a daily occurrence for most so charging stations are a niche thing not mainstream. The average Joe doesn't need to recharge several times a day and typically they can do it from the comfort of their own home. Heck even small low range cars like the Mitsu MiEV or Honda Fit EV which only have ranges of 60-80 miles are enough for a typical days commute. It could be effectively doubled if it one can recharge at work.

                The problem with recharging is for folks who don't have a dedicated place to park at home and have to park on the street or an apartment complex which doesn't have charging facilities. That's where the infrastructure needs to be and fast charging stations on the motorway are small niche in the overall market. Unfortunately given the competition for on street parking in most places it would mean a charger every dozen feet or so lining the street and that's not going to be aesthetically pleasing which will make it a non-starter in many neighborhoods. I can certainly see it working at markets or sit down restaurants which have a substantial dwell time but it's going to be a tough sell if folks can't plug in each night like they do with their phones.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

          After all, some of the *big* advantages of electricity are that it doesn't spill on the pavement, nor catches fire: the safety measures needed for pump won't be needed.

          The same safety measures may not be needed but other, just as stringent, measures will.

          For fast charging you are playing with high voltage and current and you have to consider what will happen if someone pokes a metal object into the plug or some clown puts a nail through the cable 'just for laughs'.

          1. John70

            Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

            @Ivan 4

            I think it'll be more like you've pull up to a charger and some thieving sod has nicked the cable.

            1. Stoneshop
              FAIL

              Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

              I think it'll be more like you've pull up to a charger and some thieving sod has nicked the cable.

              It's a cable that comes with the car.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

                This of course is before government introduce some new form of road taxes to keep bringing in the £35bn they extract from motorists today.

                And that is the PRECISE thing I'm worried about. You already see examples of that with more economical vehicles which drop revenue, and if e-cars strip even more off the income, something will happen and it ain't gonna be positive.

                Save now, because you'll be paying later.

              2. Adam 52 Silver badge

                Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

                If people, by which I mean members of the travelling metal recycling community, will steal high voltage railway and national grid cables then I expect they'll steal charging infrastructure cables too.

        5. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

          "it doesn't spill on the pavement, nor catches fire"

          actually, electrical connections CAN catch fire if they corrode internally or are subjected to any kind of high current fault that exceeds the capability of the system to manage the surge [that includes the CAR, not just the thing you plug into it]. And don't EVEN get me started on the dangers of improperly charging batteries that contain Lithium...

          And there's the chance of electrocuting yourself. What happens if some dim-bulb decides to take a KNIFE to the thing, or someone runs it over and it's cracked, and then the insulation falls off, etc.. Lots of potential here for mayhem.

          and 25 minutes is WAY too long waiting for a "fillup". That's up to 8 songs on the radio! I can order and consume a whopper from Burger King in less than that amount of time. I can walk a mile in that amount of time. I can DRIVE >20 miles in that amount of time [on a normal day]. If I paid myself an hourly wage, it's close to half my hourly rate that I'm literally WASTING because of that. And having to do this TWICE AS OFTEN because I can only go "up to 185 miles" on a charge [less if only 80%] ??? No thanks!

          I can imagine, on a HOT day with a traffic jam, all of the electric cars that have no means of charging themselves sitting there NOT moving because they ran out of juice, making the whole problem "that much worse".

          thinking of that... who in their right mind did NOT consider a 5HP 'charge engine'? In normal city traffic, it could turn on/off like a hybrid. Except, of course, hybrid cars have to RUN (nearly) ALL OF THE TIME and 'keep warm' which wrecks your overall economy. If you ran the engine ONLY to charge the batteries and/or supplement on hills, you'd end up with much BETTER economy because gasoline engines are most efficient when running close to FULL POWER. Same with diesel. But environmental stupidity-regulations PREVENT us from doing THAT... "It pollutes too much when cold". So we run it MORE to keep it WARM. (yeah, that made sense)

          1. Stoneshop
            Holmes

            Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

            actually, electrical connections CAN catch fire if they corrode internally or are subjected to any kind of high current fault that exceeds the capability of the system to manage the surge [that includes the CAR, not just the thing you plug into it]. And don't EVEN get me started on the dangers of improperly charging batteries that contain Lithium..

            The charger and safety systems are part of your car..

            And there's the chance of electrocuting yourself. What happens if some dim-bulb decides to take a KNIFE to the thing, or someone runs it over and it's cracked, and then the insulation falls off, etc.. Lots of potential here for mayhem.

            The cable is yours and stays with your car. Whatever happens to it it under your control.

            and 25 minutes is WAY too long waiting for a "fillup".

            Which you only need if today's trip is over the charge range, because you leave home fully charged. And if you run into that often, then EV is not (yet) for you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

        So unless every parking slot in the service station parking lot has a charger and that charger is compatible with all cars this is a no go.

        In that model, you're 100% correct. And slow turnover in many public car parks means that any charging infrastructure there won't be utilised enough to be economic. However, if you consider typical dwell times at a supermarket, they're a good fit with charging your EV once a week or so. The parking's already there, the utilisation is reasonably good - perhaps 10 charges per day, there's usually space for on site load-smoothing batteries in a few ISO containers, and you'd only need chargers for about one in three parking bays. For supermarkets there's the opportunity then to make money from the car park.

        Lots of challenges to get that working, but my point is that public EV charging can work, just not in in the form of a single purpose electric filling station. A bigger problem for countries wanting to electrify transport is the primary electricity capacity.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: 'charged to 80 per cent in just 25 minutes'

      "but it's still not too long to spend at a motorway service station."

      It is when you have that 25 minute minimum wait every 100 or so miles. And as others pointed out, if there's no free slot when you arrive, you can probably double or triple the wait time. Even at the minimum 25 minute charge time, it's adding about 30% to your journey time, which adds up very significantly on a long trip.

  7. Your alien overlord - fear me

    If Trumpy gets rid of the EPA, does that mean VW is off the hook?

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pirate

      "If Trumpy gets rid of the EPA, does that mean VW is off the hook?"

      We still don't want dirty air, so no. I don't think Trump wants dirty air. And besides, VW 'cheated' and violated the law.

      You might see a relaxation of the requirements, maybe special exceptions for diesel, and of course NO! MORE! GLOBAL! WARMING! BULLCRAP!!! And no more "we will crucify them", either. The EPA is supposed to stop GROSS NEGLIGENCE, _not_ control citizens' daily lives NOR oppress technology.

      Maybe we'll see a stop to the environmentalist nonsense regarding endangered species, too. I mean, how MUCH space does an endangered bird need to COPULATE, when 2 teenagers can manage to do it in the back seat of a car...

    2. Adam 52 Silver badge

      No, 'cos VW is foreign and Trump doesn't do non-American. He's a bit reticent about it so you may not have noticed!

  8. Rich 11

    Obligatory Terminator reference

    "I need your clothes, your boots and your Mercedes G350D. The battery's flat? No, that's OK. I can power it up myself."

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe you should mention...

    that in Europe, a fairly standard G350D in its 4 door version is already north of 100.000 USD, and for that you get an slow, narrow extremely heavy 40 year old design (I am sure a 40 year old Schwarzenegger would not be able to fit inside it). You would of course have to add the price of the conversion to that.

    It's just a publicity stunt, not a feasible alternative for the environmentally conscious that require an all terrain vehicle.

  10. ukgnome

    In just the latest of a lifetime of unusual moves

    So is the Reg saying you can't learn new stuff and reevaluate?

    What a dumb ass stance!

  11. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    That car does not run on electricity

    "Electric" Cars do not run on Electricity . Electricity is merely the storage meduim of the , um , joules.

    Where do thing that electricity came from? Thats right - ancient sunlight and dead dinosaurs. nothing has changed except the location of the smoke stack.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: That car does not run on electricity

      "nothing has changed except the location of the smoke stack."

      One thing has changed. Efficiency.

      The absolute possible maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine is about 35%, with automotive diesels being slightly higher (ship diesels hit 50% but that's a specialised case)

      The actual real-world day-to-day efficiency of most automotive engines is around 2-5% thanks to pumping losses (anything other than wide open throttle/full load is very low efficiency).

      The real-world efficiency of an electric vehicle from end to end (fuel to wheels), including the power station and distribution network is about 40% and most of the losses (over half) are in the distribution network. The actual electric vehicle part is in the region of 85-90% and it stays at that efficiency regardless of the loading.

      Additionally, the smokestack is moved away from populated areas (important in California's Central Valley, which has major inversion-related pollution problems on par with the Los Angeles basin) and being stationery can be scrubbed a _lot_ harder to get rid of nasties. Plus you can use "alternative fuels" such as nuclear, wind, solar etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That car does not run on electricity

        anything other than wide open throttle/full load is very low efficiency

        That's my excuse for my driving style. Sadly my pursuit of maximum efficiency is all too often delayed by coffin dodgers in Hondas, sticking to their self imposed "45 mph everywhere" rule.

    2. Rich 11

      Re: That car does not run on electricity

      You really needed that caffeine boost today...

    3. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: That car does not run on electricity

      "Where do thing that electricity came from? Thats right - ancient sunlight and dead dinosaurs. nothing has changed except the location of the smoke stack"

      Absolutely right, except that some of it comes from Nuclear - not sure about the ultimate source of that, ancient supernovae probably...which is still not "ultimately" :-)

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: That car does not run on electricity

      "Where do thing that electricity came from? Thats right - ancient sunlight and dead dinosaurs. nothing has changed except the location of the smoke stack."

      Yes. thanks for saying that.

      And don't forget waterfalls and uranium. [ok hydro-electric is indirect solar energy, already mentioned]

      /me likes uranium, having at one time operated "Nukular" reactors for the U.S. Navy, like former Pres. Jimmy Carter, who always pronounced it 'Nukular'. heh.

  12. Baldrickk

    Hydrogen powered cars

    Still seem to me to be the better option for clean cars.

    That said, I don't know the ins and outs of the technology, but a hydrogen tank would, I believe, be smaller and lighter than large set of batteries, taking up less space in the vehicle, could be refuled in a similar manner as cars are now - no plugging in and waiting, instead just a minute or two at a pump, and the thing that worries me most about electric cars: what is the lifetime of the battery? We all know batteries degrade over time, how long will it be before that 300m range is reduced to 200m or less? A hydrogen fueled car would, like a typical gas guzzler still hold as much in the tank after 20 years as it did new.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Hydrogen powered cars

      > That said, I don't know the ins and outs of the technology

      Hydrogen is almost entirely generated by stripping natural gas of its carbon.

      It's difficult to store as it can permeate most substances and escape. Additionally, hydrogen gas has a nasty habit of "embrittling" just about everything it comes into contact with and that gets worse under pressure. This is _NOT_ something you want happening in anything subject to pressure cycling (and the pressure cycling itself is problematic due to the constantly changing stresses on tanks/feedlines.)

      On paper, hydrogen seems ideal. The tailpipe emissions are just water.

      In practice it's a complete and utter nightmare to work with and the overall carbon emissions associated with hydrogen vehicles are slightly higher than just burning gasoline in the first place.

      Yes, it's possible to generate hydrogen using nuclear power, but if you're going to spend that much energy to do so, why not tack on a few carbon atoms whilst you're at it and turn it into a far more easily transportable/handleable fuel? There are far more hydrogen atoms in a litre of gasoline or diesel than a litre of liquid hydrogen, let alone in an automotive hydrogen tank.

      1. PNGuinn
        Boffin

        Re: Hydrogen powered cars @AB

        There is another slight problem in that the calorific value of hydrogen is very low.

        How is it that the UK's Victorian gas grid, designed to supply gas for lighting, cooking and later the occasional gas fire is still coping today supplying energy for full central heating, hot water and cooking? Ok it's beginning to creak badly in places but it's just about still coping.

        Compressed hydrogen (at whatever silly pressure you use) wont do. You HAVE to liquefy and store it as a liquid. Where you bang your head into some fundamental laws of physics.

        CNG (compressed natural gas aka methane) is a viable alternative, and conversions used to be available, British Gas used to have a converted fleet, but I suspect economics and range killed that off. If your fleet only does very shot daily runs it's viable, and you can always switch back over to traditional juice to get home.

        The only real practical alternative at the mo is LPG aka propane.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Hydrogen powered cars @AB

          "You HAVE to liquefy and store it as a liquid."

          not true. there are substances that will absorb hydrogen at one temperature, and release it at another. These materials in 'hydrate' (or is it hydride? I guess it's hydride) tanks can be used for hydrogen storage, and actual tanks exist.

          http://www.pragma-industries.com/products/hydrogen-storage/

          unfortunately, 'charge time' is _STILL_ significantly longer than a fillup of gasoline. So like battery tech, it needs to be improved.

      2. scrubber

        Re: Hydrogen powered cars

        H2O2 plus sugar = Delchev fuel

        Sugar is renewable and if the energy required to make water into hydrogen peroxide can come from renewables we have a possible in between system - roughly half as efficient as gasoline, but almost as clean as current renewables.

        We have to try a few of these ideas out to see what works and catches on, giving massive subsidies to oil companies who then spend some of that money lobbying politicians is clearly not working and neither is politicians virtue signalling how much they care about renewables for a photo op.

        1. Lennart Sorensen

          Re: Hydrogen powered cars

          Making hydrogen from water is very inefficient use of energy. Almost all current hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels and generates CO2 as a result.

          So given the safety issues of handling and storing hydrogen, how inefficient it is to make, pure electric makes a whole lot more sense, and we have a distribution network for it already, unlike hydrogen.

          If you want to use sugar, make biodiesel instead. We already have vehicles that can work on that, a distribution system that can work with it, and it is quite efficient and safe way to store energy.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Hydrogen powered cars

            "Almost all current hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels and generates CO2 as a result"

            So you, also, generate CO2 whenever you exhale. And so do whales. And elephants. And every endangered animal species on the planet (even if 'exhale' is by osmosis).

            FYI, CO2 has maybe 1% of the effect on temperature as WATER VAPOR (the 'other' greenhouse gas). Yes, I've done the math. It's related to a) concentration in the atmosphere, and b) infrared absorption spectrum. If anything, CO2 might actually cause MORE RAIN which might LOWER temperature, but in reality would just lead to re-establishing an equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, except in those locations where underwater volcanos are causing CO2 effervescence due to carbonates in the sea floor (and make convenient locations for 'monitoring CO2' when you have an agenda and are shopping for 'facts' to back your B.S. claims). But I digress...

            Seriously, though, you brought up the CO2 thing? I suggest studying chemistry. Then you'll understand why that's just PURE BOGUS B.S..

    2. The First Dave

      Re: Hydrogen powered cars

      No, the really sensible option, and its one that is already available, is Ethanol fuel.

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Hydrogen powered cars

        "No, the really sensible option" - is a bike, or two legs.

      2. Luiz Abdala

        Re: Hydrogen powered cars

        No it isn't sensible at all. Brazil uses plenty ethanol, by converting sugar cane into it... instead of using the soil for more humanitarian crops.

        Why do they choose to plant sugar cane? Because it is more profitable.

        Why is it profitable? Government subsidy.

        The fuel is 30% less concentrated than gasoline, and you need - guess - 30% more fuel to run the same distance. Now you have a fuel that won't detonate like gasoline - true - but it converts into WATER all by itself inside the tank.

        All Brazilian cars running on ethanol are retrofit with corrosion-resistant materials to counter that. Every imported car must suffer the same process as well. Every car sold here costs a lot more, just for the motor companies to retrofit their models.

        So you solve a problem, but creates two. The single advantage, it is RENEWABLE, but people stop planting FOOD to plant sugar cane.

        You don't see other countries moving to ethanol, because they don't have enough FARM-ABLE lands to keep up with the consumption.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Hydrogen powered cars

      the ONLY problem with H2 is storage. once that's solved, either by using complex hydrates or a really safe and efficient liquid H2 system, the use of fuel cells [rather than an engine] would be PERFECT.

      And yeah, you can use many methods to produce hydrogen, electrolysis being one of them. Some inexpensive methods actually involve FOSSIL FUELS, heh.

  13. Known Hero

    I can't be the only one !!!

    $1.8 Million for a animation !!!

    Who the hell thought that was a good price !!!!

    1. Rich 11

      Re: I can't be the only one !!!

      The Mill. At least they used to think so.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: I can't be the only one !!!

      "$1.8 Million for a animation !!!

      Who the hell thought that was a good price !!!!"

      They should've had Terry Gilliam do it, for less, and it would've been funnier.

  14. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    The issues with Hydrogen.

    IRL Mostly made from Methane, by adding a lot of energy.

    Difficult to move as it will diffuse through most alloys quite easily and bolted joints are not good either. Ideally you want an all welded supply line.

    It's stored at either 5000psi or -253c or -487F. The USAF classify tanks at that sort of pressure (used on launch vehicles) in terms of lbs of TNT if they fail. You will need 3-4x the energy needed to make the H2 to either compress it or liquefy it.

    But yes Hydrogen cars are quick to refuel.

    IMHO if you want an electric car economy you need to design a fuel that will do the job. Something renewable (so it can be renewed), liquid (because that's what existing fuel transport networks can handle) and easy to make (IE does not use a lot of additional energy).

    My ideal fuel is a sugar solution driving a fuel cell. Renewable, does not waste energy turning sugars into alcohol, difficult to burn and carbon neutral. Sadly it's technology is much less developed than that for other options.

    1. Unicornpiss
      Devil

      Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

      Once we have a cheap, reliable, methane fuel cell, I think electric cars will really catch on. Home recharging then will really be an option, and should be at least as safe as trying to fast charge an electric car using ancient home wiring that was not designed for the load. That said, Ahhnold should have just bought a Tesla, but I guess he wanted an SUV.

      1. inmypjs Silver badge

        Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

        "Once we have a cheap, reliable, methane fuel cell, I think"

        You seem to be rather confused about the words once and if.

        If something is possible we may discover or develop it. If something is impossible no amount of money or time is going to make it exist.

        If only we had a motor powered by wishful thinking.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

        "Once we have a cheap, reliable, methane fuel cell"

        nice wishful thinking on that, but I suspect you'd have to separate the H2 first, either with a catalyst or by heating or similar, for it to be practical.

        Here's why: a fuel cell works by doing an oxidation/reduction reaction across a barrier of some kind, wher the electrodes are charged by the reacting substances at a voltage equal to their 'electronegativity' potential. Since H2 and C have different 'electronegativity', it would tend to mess up the cell's operation and make it inefficient. It would be less of a problem with air going through the O2 side, though slight inefficiency may result from NOT using pure O2. I suppose that problem is already solved, though.

        As I understand it, fuel cell systems that run off of hydrocarbons do something that separates the hydrogen and then do something ELSE with the carbon (maybe burn it - I would). The exception might be a 'solid oxide' type which is HARDLY PRACTICAL for a vehicle. There's a patent for it that I found in a quick search.

        In any case, fuel cells ARE a good idea, if they can be practically fitted into a car (along with a practical fuel system and fast refueling capability). I think the lunar rover had fuel cells. As I recall, it also had liquid O2 and H2 tanks. So yeah. Possible, but maybe not practical. yet.

    2. TRT Silver badge

      Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

      Hydrogen can be made from water using electricity from renewables. In California anyway, where the sun always shines. If you want an alternative fuel vehicle that is cost effective in, say, Humberside, you;re going to have to invent a car that runs on misery.

      1. PNGuinn
        Coat

        Re: The issues with Hydrogen. @TRT

        But does the sun in Cali shine up inside Arnie's ass?

        Must run - being chased by a rather nasty earworm.

    3. Bodhi

      Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

      My ideal fuel for running a car would be something so plentiful it will take hundreds of years to run out of, easily made, easily transported, reasonably cheap before the governments take their slice, flexible and quick to refuel.

      Oh, I think that's called petrol. Good job I have a car readily converted to run on it.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: The issues with Hydrogen.

        "it will take hundreds of years to run out of"

        Hasn't peak oil been passed already? And with fuel consumption climbing due to China and India I doubt oil will last several hundred years. Besides, we keep releasing all that carbon into the atmosphere. Not good. So even if we swith to making petrol from coal tar, or whatever, we are still fecked.

        Alcohol is a good alternative.

  15. kmac499

    Really Cool retrofits.

    Several upVotes to Arnie for at least changing his mind over Hydrogen vs Battery almost unheard of for a politician.

    The Re-Engineering of 'classic' cars to electric seems to be a growing business along the lines of the more traditional Hot-Rod and Custom car industries. One of the neatest ones I've seen is VW Beetle conversions, often done to preserve the original look and feel of the car. Try this video https://youtu.be/fXsQGWWz3Is

    As for the future of electric powered vehicles, It all boils down to the storage/generation medium supplying power to the traction motors.

    For pure battery cars I cannot see the queue at my local tesco filling station allowing nine vehicles at a time to fast recharge at a time, your talking about a megawatt of power per petrol station.

    May be the future will be replacing the underground tanks with a bloody great supercapacitor that is charged off peak and can blast power into the cars.

    1. Lennart Sorensen

      Re: Really Cool retrofits.

      Of course what people seem to be forgetting is that electric cars can be charged at your own house. You don't have to go to a gas station for a fill, just plug it in at night when you are at home. As long as it has the range to handle your normal drive, you don't need a charging station.

      Only people doing longer trips away from home would need to stop at a charging station. It really is not directly comparable to your current gas powered car.

      The demand at charging stations will be much lower than current gas stations.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Really Cool retrofits.

        Of course what people seem to be forgetting is that electric cars can be charged at your own house.

        Most current electricity distribution systems couldn't support widespread EV adoption, because the cumulative loads exceed the design assumptions of the network and generating capacity. It could be done (just) if the EV charging across all connected vehicles is actively managed by the electricity system operator, but that means you plug it in, but THEY control when it charges (and use it to take power back at certain times).

        If you have an EV with a range of 240 miles, and never do more than fifty miles a day, you might be cool with that. If you make frequent 100+ mile trips, you might feel a bit vulnerable plugging in a nearly flat EV, hoping they'll be good enough to grant you the range for whatever tomorrow's plans involve.

        1. Stoneshop
          Boffin

          Re: Really Cool retrofits.

          If you have an EV with a range of 240 miles, and never do more than fifty miles a day, you might be cool with that. If you make frequent 100+ mile trips, you might feel a bit vulnerable plugging in a nearly flat EV, hoping they'll be good enough to grant you the range for whatever tomorrow's plans involve.

          In which case you would want your electron rental company to offer you a non-interrupted plan. There's also the option to augment the charging process with locally-stored and/or -generated power; ISTR FIAT once selling TOT(al)E(nergy)M(odule) units that you could hook into your central heating, while also providing electricity. And even though it burned hydrocarbons (natural gas IIRC), the use of its heat as well as running pretty optimally meant that efficiency would be way better than running an IC car.

  16. Mike 125

    Arnie

    People, you're getting too hung up on the detail - there's only one news story here:

    Hmmm. Arnie, he buy big, shiny, electric car. Hmmm. Arnie good. Hmmm. Big, shiny, electric car good. Hmmm. Me want big, shiny, electric car too.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Trumponomics

    - but, but - aren't Fraraday simply practicing the kind of economics that we're being told will make America great? I mean, if ordering stuff then not paying your bills is good enough for El Presidente Chump, then surely it's good enough for Faraday Futures? And shouldn't FF be suing folk for claiming that they can't pay (clearly lies, damned lies, all of it!)? The winnings from their sueballs should easily be able to cover what they owe, no?

    <grin>

    1. Stoneshop
      Headmaster

      Re: Trumponomics

      clearly lies, damned lies, all of it!

      The correct term should be 'alternative truth' or 'alternative facts'. Please keep with the program.

      1. Swarthy

        Re: Trumponomics

        No, when I use them, they are Alternative Facts; when you use them, they are Damned Lies.

  18. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

    Hmm, isn't California one of those places where they have a shortage of lecky - as in, at peak times they have to order people to turn off the AC ?

    And they want to get people to use sh*tloads more of it to run the cars ...

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If electric cars are so good why didn't Ford continue with his electric car, you know, the one he developed before the model T?

    They didn't work then for the same reason as today - short range and long charge time.

    Electric cars may be the thing for the couple of mile run to the shops but that is about all. They are useless for making the 5 to 600 mile road trip in a reasonable time.

    1. Lennart Sorensen

      Because electric cars of that era were considered "not manly enough" for motorists. Sure women and maybe doctor's making house calls (where reliable and simple and clean was acceptable, unlike for real men driving cars with hand cranks and oil everywhere) could drive electric cars, but not men.

      As for road trips, who really cares? Most people don't do road trips. Go rent a car if you need to make a road trip then. Take the train, or a plane or a bus. There are options for the special cases.

      1. Swarthy

        You say "Road trip" I say "Daily commute". Your use case is not everyone's use case.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They didn't work then for the same reason as today - short range and long charge time.

      Charging times are coming down, battery capacities are going up. Nissan Leaf (in my country) started out at 20 kWh battery, became 25 kWh, is now 30 kWh, and the new model later this year is mooted to have 60 kWh. Still short of the range of petrol car, but the progress is there.

      By my reckoning, EVs will offer 80% of the range of a petrol car by the early 2020s, offer better performance, better reliability and lower maintenance. When volume builds the costs will drop to similar levels, and suddenly, absent a few refuseniks and niche uses, the market won't want fossil fuel cars.

    3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Because 100 year old technology should not be improved upon, no matter if pollution kills us all?

      A lot of "can't do" around here..

  20. NBCanuck

    Clean electricity

    Just remember that while electricity is "clean" at point of use, it may not be at point of generation.

    Wind, solar and hydro are clean generating (apart from what goes into manufacturing the parts), as in nuclear (clean as in gaseous emissions, not that no waste is produced), but if the electricity is being generated at coal-fired plants, then all it is doing is transferring the bad air to another region.

    The biggest hurdles are still transfer times and battery capacity vs size and weight. We are getting better at generating clean electricity but still lack on the ability of storing excess for use at night or during calm winds. The race to be the one to produce a long-range, fast-charging car that won't catch on fire is worth big bucks. Just glad to see that there are still a lot of companies pursuing it. Don't give up, folks!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Terminator

    Arnold hasn't gone completely touchy-feely

    You guys do know that besides his electric Mercedes, Ah-nult has his own tank? He bought an Austrian army-surplus M48 and puts it to good use in this hilarious video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVs5kgvA_Ow

  22. Luiz Abdala

    I like electric vehicles as a whole... but...

    I like how powerful they can be. They don't have to, still they do.

    I like the fact they don't pollute the air, usually.

    I like how my country has over 90% of electrical power coming from hydroelectric dams, and could own one right now and feel real cozy about doing my part to the environment. Really egotistic, but oh that would feel GOOD.

    I like when people convert old cars (Beetles!) into electric, and they become more powerful, and more reliable than their gas counterparts ever were.

    I like how simple they are. One motor, one inverter, a kill switch, lots of batteries... and a potentiometer on the go pedal telling the inverter how much juice it must push into the motor.

    but....

    I hate how costly they are.

    I hate how people only note the subject when they can go 0-60 in stupid seconds. If they perform just as much as their gas brethren, so be it.

    I hate how people forget that most of the time, they won't cover more than 150 miles in a day and autonomy becomes irrelevant. If you go farther than that, go gas, please! It makes sense to use gas for travelling, but not for boring daily drive commute!

    I hate how apartment buildings don't have high-power lines anywhere near the parking lots. (This should be included in the building code). Once you have them, it is easy to enable power sockets compatible to any type of electric car, SAE J1772 being the foremost example. Enabling a power meter for FAIR BILLING on these guys would be equally trivial, if they were included in the building code.

    I hate how people feel ENTITLED to TAX REBATES because they are using electrical energy. NOBODY should have them, or EVERYBODY should have them. Likewise, no subsidy, or EVERYBODY gets subsidy.

    ========================================================

    On a side lane:

    Elon Musk built an electric car for all the WRONG reasons, and people loved him for it!

    You don't need 500HP, but, there you go!

    You don't need 260 mile range, but there you go!

    You don't need the car to look good like a gas car, but there you go!

    If people paid attention to the subject of electric car for THE RIGHT REASONS, we'd be all driving them right now. The Tesla S just spat that in everybody's faces, and lots of people didn't even notice. He built the car just to prove a POINT. GM built the EVO-1 for THE RIGHT REASONS, and nobody gave a flying F...

    Now Arnold is pulling that stunt on BRICK made by Mercedes, and it is, like Elon Musk and its Tesla S, making a STATEMENT, proving a POINT, that you can own BRICK of a car, a SUV, and still you can avoid burning gas, and not losing much on the upgrade. Again, he is doing it for the WRONG reasons, just to try to dissuade the gas-guzzlers from using gas, and instead using electric, and still have the same attributes they all love in their vehicles.

  23. Sporkinum

    Plugin hybrid

    I just got a plug-in hybrid version of the C-max. With plugging in at home and gas used when on longer trips and when needed to run the heater in winter, I have been getting combined 49 US MPG/59 IMP MPG. Or 20.9 km/l. Plugin hybrids are a nice compromise for some of us.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon