Legendary Motor Developer Calls Electric Cars An “Environmental Fraud” …”Dangerous False Path”!

Professor Friedrich Indra has been retired since 2005 and is considered to be one of the world’s leading engine developers. The 76-year old used to work for Audi and General Motors.

Electric mobility is an environmental fraud, says world leading expert in engine technology. Image: Tesla

“Doesn’t solve single environmental problem”

In a recent interview with the online FOCUS news magazine he raised a lot of eyebrows by stating that he thinks electric mobility is a “dangerous false path”, claiming that the electric car “does not solve a single environmental problem” and that it “contributes nothing to climate protection”.

Indra calls the claims that electric cars are CO2-free “absurd”.

Fake efficiency

Citing an earlier stiudy by a Professor Spicha, Indra says that the well-to-wheel-CO2 of an electric car in Germany is in fact 1.6 times worse than the conventional internal combustion engine. The CO2 perforamnce of an electric car in China is even four to five times worse when it comes to consumption, and that does not mention the huge energy quantities needed for manufacturing the batteries that electric cars need, which would be enough to power a conventional automobile 30,000 kilometers, he told FOCUS.

Electric cars also have the problems of recycling the batteries, as they are a long way from being fully recyclable.

According to Indra, internal combustion engines have made “very impressive progress“, saying: “The motors are continuously getting more powerful and more fuel efficient.” The engine expert believes that the final solution is “CO2-neutral synthetic fuels. They need as much CO2 for for their manufacture as emitted when in operation.”

The “second greatest environmental fraud”

When it comes to hybrid automobiles, Indra opinion is harsh, calling the plug-in-hybrids “the second greatest environmental fraud because the determination of the fuel consumption does not even include the power that was previously needed to charge up the car.” This is how “sportscars using the technology come up with perverse values like 3.1 liters consumption per 100 km [80 mpg]”.

In the interview Indra rails against what he calls “widespread hatred against internal combustion engines” among the media and policymakers, who he says exploited the VW emissions test cheating affair to spread more hate against the internal combustion engines. He thinks the scandal was played up by the media and is “completely disassociated from fact“. Never has “industry and policymaking acted so irrationally“. He believes politicians are in for a rude awakening once the true costs start coming in.

Toy for the rich

On the current a future trend of electric cars, Indra tells FOCUS:

In the meantime in some countries the market share by pure electric cars is already retreating. That’s also going to happen with the plug-in-hybrids after all the ‘rich people’ are supplied with these cars.”

Massive government subsidies

He says the claimed “success” of electric cars in China and Norway is due to massive government subsidies: “No country in the world can afford that over the long-term. That will level off once again, as is already the case in Norway.”


141 responses to “Legendary Motor Developer Calls Electric Cars An “Environmental Fraud” …”Dangerous False Path”!”

  1. Adam Gallon

    Grinds my gears, that somebody in the UK, who buys a Tesla at £60k, get a £4.5k present from the Government for the pleasure!

    1. AndyG55

      How much has Musk scammed from the US government over the years.

      I read somewhere that it is around $4.9 BILLION.

  2. DirkH

    “He believes politicians are in for a rude awakening once the true costs start coming in.”

    Never. They just steal more money from us.
    We are chasing ever lower efficiency gains with ever increasing amounts of money. Or in the case of wind turbines and electric cars, not even any gains in efficiency but we outlaw efficiency.

    Our society is doomed until the political-medial caste is completely wiped out. And with it the government science sector. The Total State is a ratchet effect that always ends in catastrophy.

    Resource abundance has propelled parasites to the top. Scarcity will wipe them out.

  3. Bob Hoye

    My view has been that without the arbitrary subsidy, how many electric cars or hybrids would have been built?

    1. Graeme No.3

      A subsidy for the manufacturer or the purchaser? The latter seems to have more things in mind; an you have to ask what will happen to luxury car manufacturers if the electric toys actually worked.

  4. Bitter&twisted

    I have a 54 year old Jaguar car.
    On a good day it manages 23mpg on what I refer to as “fossil sunshine”.
    Rather better than these so-called “green” electric cars.

  5. CO2isLife

    He is not kidding that it doesn’t solve a single problem. Not only doesn’t it solve a single problem, the costs of not solving a single problem is measured in multiples of world GDP. That isn’t a joke.

    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

  6. John

    Giga factory will completely run on Solar power. But, even if the battery and electric vehicle manufacturing is powered by fossil fuel, the net carbon footprint of the electric car is very much less compared to an internal combustion engine.

    1. sod

      You are confusing them with facts. they have their alternative facts and believe every word that confirms those, even the nonsense he is stating about synthetic fuels…

      1. AndyG55

        A totally appropriate song just for John and sob… enjoy it together boys.


        1. tom0mason

          too right!

  7. sod

    Can anyone provide a link to a study that shows higher energy use (or CO2 output) of electric cars than of fossil fuel cars?

    The main point of the interview is not supported by data!

    Meanwhile, people are starting to understand that the major problem of electric cars is one, that needs help: Costs are up front, so new “selling” mechanisms are needed.


    Beware: plenty of cities are constantly failing laws against emissions. At one point, a single court decision again will ban petrol and diesel cars and will open the market for electric cars from one moment to the next.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Yes, we are constantly told that if only we subsidise “renewables”, electric cars, unicorn breeding etc. then shortly they will be cheaper than the current (evil) methods. So why do the proponents always want a 25 year guarantee?

      Please sod consult a psychiatrist, your unfounded obsession will ruin your life.

      1. AndyG55

        “your unfounded obsession will ruin your life.”

        What life? Not much happening in his little inner city basement, is there sob, sob.

      2. SebastianH

        You’d want a guarantee for the lifetime of your investment, wouldn’t you? You are always subsidizing the whole investment otherwise there wont be an investment. Take Hinkley Point C for example. They get a fixed rate for their electricity too … same principle.

        1. david johnson

          And two wrongs don’t make a right Seb Sob

          1. SebastianH

            That’s right. But this was about explaining how fixed rates have to be guaranteed for long periods and not just in the beginning as the parent suggested.

      3. sod

        “Yes, we are constantly told that if only we subsidise “renewables”, electric cars, unicorn breeding etc. then shortly they will be cheaper than the current (evil) methods.”

        solar and wind are already cheaper than any other new source of electricity.

        we are delivering the stuff that you claim is impossible to deliver!

        1. AndyG55

          “solar and wind are already cheaper than any other new source of electricity.”

          So you have no problems in removing subsidies and feed-in mandates.

          right, sob ??

    2. AndyG55

      “a single court decision again will ban petrol and diesel cars”

      And deliveries of goods to that place will cease immediately. But we know you don’t care how much people suffer.. except, you would be one of them this time, sob.

      No food anywhere near your inner city ghetto.. no decaf latte… your meaningless life would become even more meaningless.

      1. sod

        “And deliveries of goods to that place will cease immediately. But we know you don’t care how much people suffer.. except, you would be one of them this time, sob.”

        delivery of stuff might be the first thing that moves to electric cars.


  8. SebastianH

    Professor Indra is clearly wrong and contradicts himself. On the one hand he wants to manufacture synthetic fuels and on the other hand he critizes the well-to-wheel CO2 of electric cars. The first endeavor needs massive amounts of energy (even more than manufacturing and compressing hydrogren for car-use) and therefor produces large amounts of CO2 in the same way CO2 is produced for charging a car and manufacturing its battery.

    Let’s assume synthetic fuel production is just as inefficient as the use of hydrogen. So we need 3 kWh of electricity for every kwh of fuel. With a standard motor with 20-30% mean efficiency this results in 10-15 kWh of electricity for 1 kWh “on the wheels”. How does that compare in terms of CO2 output to a battery electric vehicle with 1.3 kWh of electricity needed to put 1 kWh “on the wheels”? Yeah, the CO2 produced while burning the fuel is neutral, but the amount of CO2 produced while producing such fuels is an order of magnitude bigger than with standard electric cars.

    All the other claims are ridiculous as well. Electric cars cause less CO2 to be emitted than ICE cars … yes, battery production included. This has been shown by various studies. Batteries can be easily recycled (http://pmr.umicore.com/en/batteries/our-recycling-process) and he seems to be unaware of current price trends. If VW claims an electric car will cost as much as a Diesel car in 2025, then I trust they have done their math. Battery costs are expected to come down to $100 per kWh in the near future and charging with 350 kW is also in the works.

    He is right in one thing: the consumption figures manufacturers publish for their hybrid cars are not reflecting reality. They assume one starts with a full battery and empties it in the first 100 km. The used fuel for this distance is then given as the cars consumption. I wonder who came up with this idea …

    1. tom0mason
      1. SebastianH

        I can’t speak for the viability of an electric car in California, but I can give you real life numbers from Germany.

        A Tesla 100D driven at 120 km/h has a range of 390 km (-10°C heating on) to 494 km (+40°C no AC). It’s 471 km at 20°C without AC and 458 km at 30°C with AC on. Let’s assume an average of 440 km per charge which equals 227.3 Wh per km. Let’s also assume the actual usage with charging losses is ~20% higher than that. So we end up with 273 Wh per km.

        Driving 15000 km per year this would add 4095 kWh to our electricity bill and put our total usage at ~7600 kWh. The cheapest provider would cost us 1767,89 € for that amount of electricity which equals 0,233 € per kWh.

        That equals driving costs of 0,0636 € per km for the Tesla car. The current gas price is at ~ 1.35 € per litre so you’d need an ICE car with a gas usage of 4.71 litres per 100 km to match the Tesla in fuel costs. A comparable Mercedes E-class with more than 300 HP has a usage of 11,58 litres (average) and therefor will cost you 2.5 times as much per km as the Tesla 100D.


        P.S.: You can do the same kind of comparison for smaller cars. Higher electricity costs vs. low gas prices make electric cars less appealing, that’s no secret. But if you current can afford an electric car, you most likely are a candidate for photovoltaics on your roof which drastically reduces your price per kWh.

      2. sod

        “Why not look at some real world figures.”

        because chiefio got it completely wrong. all numbers in that article are completely worthless.

        Chiefio is calculating “miles per gallon” via the price for electric cars. That is plain out wrong.

        Even a 10 seconds google search would have told him so:


    2. tom0mason

      “Let’s assume synthetic fuel production is just as inefficient as the use of hydrogen.”

      No we should not.

      1. SebastianH

        Have you found a new way to synthesize fuel without the use of massive amounts of energy?

    3. AndyG55

      “If VW claims an electric car will cost as much as a Diesel car in 2025, then I trust they have done their math”

      roflmao.. good to know you trust VW, seb.. you moronic goose.

      How do you fit both of your feet in your mouth at once ?

      1. SebastianH

        Your motivation to post comments like this eludes me. Why AndyG, why?

        1. AndyG55

          Your ignorance, yet again come to the forefront

          Why, oh why are you so, so ignorant !!!!

        2. AndyG55

          What sort of car did you say you drive, seb.

          You avoided the question before…..

          Or do you borrow your mum’s diesel SUV?

          1. AndyG55

            For those who didn’t see it elsewhere.

            seb has finally admitted he drives a Mercedes, fossil fuelled car.

            He talks electric car, but that’s about it.

            Do as he says, not as he does.

            A far-left activist, FOR SURE.

    4. Dave Ward

      “If VW claims an electric car will cost as much as a Diesel car in 2025, then I trust they have done their math”

      I doubt that many people believe anything that VW are saying right now…

      1. sod

        “I doubt that many people believe anything that VW are saying right now…”

        VW got the wake up call.

        The rest is still asleep at the wheel.

        Greens have to save German car companies or they will wake up without any business!!!

        PS: you need a new film for your camera or a new non-LED torchlight? just call me!

        1. AndyG55

          “Greens have to save German car companies or they will wake up without any business!!!”

          The best way to do that is to remove all the ludicrous anti-CO2 regulations. Stop piling on loads of useless, unnecessary other regulation.

          Afterall, you say we can trust them to do the right thing… right sob.

          What sort of car do you drive, btw.?

        2. Will Janoschka

          sod 13. February 2017 at 5:36 PM

          “I doubt that many people believe anything that VW are saying right now…”

          Most all folk that actually work for a living would believe VW way more than any government lawyer! The regulation\law said the auto had to pass a certain emissions test! The auto did indeed pass the test! Then the politicos decided that no, not pass the test, but demonstrate the road performance, something never mentioned in the regulation.

  9. Henning Nielsen

    It is true that Norway has massive subsidies for e-cars. No VAT plus other tax advantages, no toll road payments (which you pay for driving into all the largest cities and on new roads), free parking and charging in the city centre. And not least, the right to use bus lanes on most highways, and on main roads in the cities. These incentives were supposed to have a limited life, in fact, until this year, but the e-car lobby has grown strong (ca. 100.000 e-cars registered, some out of use already, though)…and who can argue against “saving the planet”? However, it is not given that e-car owners would be driving fossil fuel cars to town without these perks. They might even have been using public transport. And of course many of them have a nice fat SUV in addition. The wealthy suburbs are awash with subsidised Teslas.

    But here, not only roads projects but also large public transport projects are at least partially financed by road tolls. So what happens if, for instance, half the cars in Oslo are electric? It would mean a massive failure of income to these projects. If the e-perks are continued for, say, another 6-7 years, there is really little reason not to change to such cars for many drivers, and the result could be that the state and local councils would need to contribute far more to such projects. In the city of Bergen, there was recently a bit of a scare because the car traffic, and thus the road tolls, had gone slightly down. And what’s the problem with that? Well, the road toll is used to finance the new light railway, which is built in order to reduce car traffic. Logical, isn’t it? But when it comes to taxes and climate crises, everything goes.

  10. sod

    So has anyone read the Ulrich Spicher article that is the base of these absurd claims?


    or is there any other evidence that anyone wants to give to us?

    1. tom0mason

      sod can you do no better than “Analysis of the Efficiency of Future Powertrains for Individual Mobility”

      Crystal ball gazing by academic — useless!

      1. sod

        “sod can you do no better than “Analysis of the Efficiency of Future Powertrains for Individual Mobility””

        That is not “my” article, but the article the Legendary Motor Developer is basing his most important claims on:

        “Es gibt eine sehr gute Untersuchung von Professor Spicher, derzufolge bei einer CO2-Well-to-Wheel-Betrachtung das Elektroauto in Deutschland um den Faktor 1,6 schlechter ist als ein Verbrenner. In Österreich ist es immerhin nur um den Faktor 1,3 schlechter, weil wir viel Wasserkraft nutzen. In China hingegen ist es 4 bis 5 mal schlechter. Und wir reden hier über den Verbrauch und noch nicht einmal über die riesigen Energiemengen, die bei der Herstellung der Batterien benötigt werden und mit denen ein normales Auto etwa 30.000 Kilometer weit käme.”


  11. Dave Ward

    “The public (thankfully) are not that stupid, just very distrustful of politicians giving advice on subjects they have little real knowledge”

    Like the politicians who encouraged the public to buy diesel cars to reduce CO2 emissions (for completely pointless reasons). Now those SAME politicians are getting worried about NO2 and particulate emissions from diesels. There are already calls for government (i.e taxpayers) to give “Cash for Bangers” incentives to get people to switch to alternatives. this isn’t straightforward, as many popular cars don’t have petrol options now, and only the likes of sod and Sebastian H think that electric power is a practical solution. Anyone who actually knows about engines foresaw this happening decades ago…

  12. Crash

    This is a pretty much garbage article. I’m from California. I pay $27/mo in electricity to drive 45 miles/day for 20 days a month. Even in the most efficient gas cars, it would cost more than 4x that. I know because I made the drive in gas cars before. My EV is a lease so the only incentive is $2.5k, which doesn’t really make up for much. Where I live, 90% of our electricity comes from natural gas and solar. So the carbon footprint is miniscule compared to a gas car. I average 4.5 mi/kWh. No gas car comes remotely close to that efficiency.

    There’s so much bunk in this article. And so many accepting it’s truth without evidence or personal experience.

    I’m a car guy, but denying facts because they’re convenient is unbecoming.

    1. AndyG55

      And what do you drive when you actually want to go somewhere?

      You say you are a “car” guy, so I assume a V8 or something. Or maybe 2, 3 ?

      Its like wind power, gotta have back-up when it can’t do the job. !!

  13. A C Osborn

    The one massive Elephant in the room that Sod & co are totally ignoring.
    How much of the current price of Fossil fuels is TAX.
    Add the same type of taxation to Electrity and you have an Inflation disaster on your hands.
    If you don’t add it on then you have a Governmental Financial disaster on your hands, where will they get all that missing Tax from?

    Now let us look at the initial price of the car, at the moment like for like cars electric is between 50% to 100% more than the price of an equivelent FF car, that takes a long time to pull back even at the current non taxed electricity prices, by which time you will probably be in need of a new battery. Provided of course the car hasn’t burst in to flames and incinerated itself.

    1. SebastianH

      I can only speak for Germany. The tax percentage on electricity is higher than on car fuels. But the government will have missing tax income because electric cars use less energy per distance. Could be a problem or expenses in another area (health) shrink when switching to electric cars and it’s a zero sum game.

      Why would the car burst in to flames? Most manufacturers give an 8 year guarantee on the drive train plus battery. That doesn’t mean the car explodes at the end of the 8th year 😉

      The price gap between electric cars and comparable ICE cars is shrinking fast.

      1. A C Osborn

        I suggest that you check your taxation values for Germany it appears to be Approximately 50% for Electricity and 87% for Petrol.



      2. A C Osborn

        I suggest that you recheck the Taxation on German Electricity and Petrol.
        From what I have been able to find it is currently approximately 50% for electricity, most of which is made up of Green Levies and approximately 87% for Petrol some for tax and some for VAT.
        Petrol tax 1.22 Euros, full price 1.389 Euros

        1. SebastianH

          You have to re-read your links then … They write “adds up to prices of 1.22 €”. That’s not the tax.

          Depending on the gasoline price the taxation is at around 60-65%. For electricity it’s around 54%. If you count in “Netzentgelte” (paying for infrastructure of the power grid) it is almost 80% …

  14. Kabud

    A real out of pocket cost to own and drive TESLA has nothing to do with price on electricity. One has to look at lease expenses for TESLA and see for yourselves. https://www.tesla.com/support/tesla-leasing
    Add the insurance that TESLA will make you to buy, add secured garage costs, because your TESLA is a risk to be stolen, add maintenance plan costs(practically mandatory or otherwise your TESLA may die and their people will refuse to work on it). LEASE is for 15 000 miles/year for 3 years. I put at least 18 000 miles every year on my car and i live in an urban settings, with buses, trains etc. And I am not making a cross country trips or travel to other cities

    When you really calculate all the expenses: it is at least $30 000 a year to drive TESLA, WITHOUT counting electricity charges. For 15 000 miles a year.


    I Drive a nice stick shift gasoline Toyota, which gives me the best performance on the road out of all others ;0) a previous toyota of mine served me for close to 300 000 miles, NEVER BROKE ON ME. Lasted 15 years. It goes 40 miles on a gallon. Weekly fill up is under or $20 . Something like that, give or take.

    This is REAL STORY not the ideological crap. TAKE THE CALCULATOR, CHAMPS,
    USE IT

    1. SebastianH

      Did you really expect a $100000 car to be economical? At least compare it to something similar and not a Toyota.

      1. AndyG55

        “Did you really expect a $100000 car to be economical?”

        Depends how much the taxpayer is covering.

        A rabid greenie priest would expect it to be totally covered by the taxpayer.

        What was the total of Musk’s tax-payer scamming… $4.9 Billion or something like that. !!

  15. AndyG55
    1. Kabud

      One has read tesla owners forums. One can learn about MULTIPLE FLAWS in so many elements of this pseudo-car. And again : this `car` will cost you all-for-all AT LEAST 30 000 US DOLLARS A YEAR without adding fuel costs. More likely it will be closer to 40 000. One has to be mentally challenged or to have UNLIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR TOYS )))) to get into this swindle
      tesla is not resalable , that is FOR SURE.

  16. Kabud

    Tesla no longer guarantees your electric car’s resale value. Tesla discontinued the program for any new car bought in the US after July 1st. 2016. The latest Consumer Report data is unkind to electric cars. It lists the 2014 BMW i3 as a used car to avoid because of an unfavorable reliability record. The same goes for the 2013 Nissan LEAF. The Tesla Model S is still on the list of cars CR advises against.

  17. clipe
  18. clipe


    Re “Powered by cynicism” (Christine Van Geyn, Feb. 10): Thank you for informing us of the latest Liberal quaff. Personally, I would like to know what Tesla is going to do for Ontario. Will they build an electric car plant in Ontario? Will they build a battery production plant? Will they build a facility to produce affordable household battery back-up systems for solar generation, to help Ontario’s screwed up electric distribution system? No! I’m sure their contribution will be to the Liberal Party of Ontario.

    Doug McDonald

    (Tesla can choose to donate, or not donate, to anyone it likes. The issue is that publicly subsidizing electric cars in the $75,000 to $150,000 range up to $14,000 per car is bad public policy)


    I walk along Burlington’s north shore for exercise. As I passed a driveway from a 10,000-square-foot mansion on the lakefront, the owner pulled out in his gorgeous new Tesla S! Even though I can barely afford my 15-year-old Volkswagen, I was proud to know I had done my bit to fight climate change by helping this man get a Tesla with my tax dollars! Hopefully someday I will be able to keep a straight face when I tell my grandchildren how I fought climate change!

    Stan Sutton

    (We wish you luck. We couldn’t)


  19. Scorpion

    What a bunch of IDIOTS on this forum. Typical right-wing crappy intellect.
    Who the hell said electric cars are about saving the environment?
    How about getting offf of foreign oil? Now what do you have to say?
    The electricity in my electric car comes from my local utility and create American jobs.
    Half the gas in your gas tank originated as crude oil in a foreign country….many of whom are State sponsors of terrorism.
    Who’s the patriot now!?
    Who complains about is Islamic terrorism and then turns around and drives the gas guzzler? HYPOCRITES on the right

    1. AndyG55

      moron alert !!!

      Scorpion has sucked deep on the AGW propaganda.

      Obviously he is a gullible, FACT-FREE non-entity. !

    2. Kabud

      some one never learned arithmetic ))))) THERE ARE one and a quarter billions vehicles riding on this planet now. IN 15 years the estimate is 2 billion vehicles, globally Out of all of them TODAY only ONE MILLION or less are EVs.


      Oil is no longer foreign in USA. We increased production TWICE since 2008 almost up to 10 mil b a day. If barrel price will remain at least at 50 or 60 for about 5 years we will continue to boost production levels till 100% of the oil will be domestic.

      btw we IMPORT the SO CALLED FOREIGN oil from Canada and Mexico. THAT IS foreign FOR YOU))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

      There are other NON IOL solutions


      MUSK is an agent for moscow oil criminal empire, recruited in S Africa, which they own since the 90s COMPLETELY. Musk also is responsible for this `rocket` project for them

      TESLA is designed as a trap and mass disillusion psy op for all the not so smart out there. So you will cry and come back to rusky oil

      1. SebastianH

        WTF dude, you almost made sense until you started with the capital letter rant, but then you lost it.

        Describe just one “non oil solution” that beats batteries!

        1. AndyG55

          “Describe just one “non oil solution” that beats batteries!


    3. AndyG55

      US oil reserves are larger than Saudi or Russia.


      All that has to happen is the moronic anti-progress dumbocrats need to get out the way.

      It is those that stop oil production in the US that should be likened to Islamic terrorists.

      And these are the same people who want unfettered immigration and the degradation of US society.

      Are you one of those low-life dumbocrats, scrop?

      Fortunately, Trump knows this and will start putting America on the right track again, away from the anti-science, anti-CO2 AGW scam of the socialist totalitarian agenda.

  20. Kabud

    over 10% of fuel in USA tanks is ethanol, domestically produced

  21. Scorpion

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Trump supporters are beyond hope. I would school them on cartel economics, API gravity, fiat currency and the crack spread,
    but these facts would fly over the heads of these high school dropouts. Or they would parrot their own that they read on some right-wing website.
    No, Trump supporters are so far gone, they repesent a threat to humanity.
    Thank God Silicon Valley and MIT are liberal. We need to start mass producing drones and wipe them out. Their guns and big pickup trucks will be useless against drones….just ask the Taliban.

    1. A C Osborn

      Scorpion 14. February 2017 at 2:27 PM

      Such intolerance, advocating killing people because they disagree with you POV.

    2. AndyG55

      Poor scrop, the only “drone” I can hear is your drug-fuelled rantings.

      Sort of like watching a 5 year old chuck a tanty in a supermarket, because mummy won’t let him have a lolly. 😉

  22. Kabud

    “Just Eat” delivers food with green conscience in fuel cell car
    A new vehicle technology which meets the challenges of today and provides the answer for tomorrow’s sustainable transport has over the past seven weeks been tested by Just Eat. Now, Just Eat can look forward to delivering food in the world’s first registered methanol-driven fuel cell car.
    A̲n̲ ̲e̲l̲e̲c̲t̲r̲i̲c̲ ̲v̲e̲h̲i̲c̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲r̲u̲n̲s̲ ̲8̲0̲0̲ ̲k̲m̲ ̲w̲i̲t̲h̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲r̲e̲c̲h̲a̲r̲g̲i̲n̲g̲.̲
    This is now a reality with a new range-extender, developed by the Danish project ’Modular Energy Carrier Concept’ (MECc).
    The range-extender applies a groundbreaking fuel cell technology, which is based on bio-methanol as energy source and makes it possible to extend the range of electric cars
    from 100 km to 800 km –
    four times longer than the average electric car today.
    The model variant which Just Eat has tested over the past seven weeks is Fiat 500 configured with a battery pack and the range-extender. The past year, the project has run successful internal tests. Now, the car is cruising the roads in Denmark as the world’s first registered methanol-driven car and has passed its test in a living lab setup at Just Eat.
    “In Just Eat, we are always looking to create a greener profile. Therefore, we often test alternative solutions in regards to the composition of our delivery fleet. Unfortunately, most of these solutions fall short due to reduced driving range. So when we see a solution such as this, where range is not an issue, and where we can make use of existing infrastructure then it becomes really interesting for us,” says Philip Hinrichsen, Operations Director Just Eat Denmark.
    The test has been so successful that Just Eat has decided to continue delivering food in the methanol-driven fuel cell car – now in normal operation and no longer as a test. This marks an important milestone for the technology and not least for sustainable transport in general as it means that methanol-driven fuel cell cars can now cruise the roads of Denmark on commercial terms.
    The future alternative for electric cars
    The fuel cell technology, which is applied in the project, can be implemented and adjusted to most electric cars and can thereby contribute to eliminating any type of range anxiety at the same time as creating a cost effective alternative to existing electric cars.
    Besides greatly extending the range of the vehicle, the technology provides a number of advantages which benefits the consumers as well as the environment. The range-extender is clean, simple and applies methanol as an energy carrier. This means that cars, configured with the range-extender, runs on bio-methanol, which is cheaper than gasoline and diesel, takes less than three minutes to refuel and can be produced from renewables in large entities.
    The fuel cells convert methanol into electricity which charges directly onto the battery of the car – quick, efficient and with no particle emission. Moreover, the fuel cell provides heating of high quality which is used for cabin comfort heating and in the long term, can provide cooling via thermic-driven air-condition.
    ”The technology developed in the MECc project contributes to making sustainable transport even more accessible and widespread by meeting those demands and needs users have today in regards to modern transportation. Especially, we see a great potential in the segment of professional users who have an extensive driving need and at the same time wants a green profile,” says Jens Christian Morell Lodberg Høj, project manager for the MECc project, and continues: “Furthermore, as the technology matures and more modules enters in to the market, the technology will become even more competitive in price and weight, which will open up to even more markets in the future.”
    Also, rolling out methanol gas stations in a large scale is both easy and cheap. Similar to gasoline and diesel, methanol is a liquid fuel, which makes it possible to use the existing infrastructure of gas stations worldwide. The refueling technology will thus be integrated directly into standard refueling stations making it attractive to automakers worldwide.
    A shared vision
    This investment is aligned with Methanex’s vision to grow the use of renewable methanol and increase the availability of low carbon methanol from sustainable sources. Methanex is a partner in the MECc project and a key shareholder of Carbon Recycling International (CRI). CRI built and operates the world’s first industrial scale facility for production of renewable methanol from recycled CO2 emissions and is currently planning several new facilities globally.
    “We are very excited to supply our renewable methanol for the MECc project and help to demonstrate how the technical limitations of electric cars can be overcome with liquid fuel range-extenders, while providing carbon neutral mobility,” says Benedikt Stefansson, Director of Business Development for Carbon Recycling International (CRI).

  23. Kabud
  24. Kabud
  25. Kabud
    1. SebastianH

      And how would you produce the methanol? Isn’t that even more energy intensive than producing hydrogen?

      1. Kabud

        Are you banned on google? Cmon, learn to LEARN. Methanol is a known fuel for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is the simplest alcohol. IN PRC methanol constitutes btw 8 and 10% of motor fuel. One has to start READING and use your brains Read Zubrin on methanol

        1. Kabud

          In their embalming process, the ancient Egyptians used a mixture of substances, including methanol, which they obtained from the pyrolysis of wood. Pure methanol, however, was first isolated in 1661 by Robert Boyle, when he produced it via the distillation of buxus (boxwood).[41] It later became known as “pyroxylic spirit”. In 1834, the French chemists Jean-Baptiste Dumas and Eugene Peligot determined its elemental composition
          Direct-methanol fuel cells or DMFCs are a subcategory of proton-exchange fuel cells in which methanol is used as the fuel. Their main advantage is the ease of transport of methanol, an energy-dense yet reasonably stable liquid at all environmental conditions.
          Efficiency is quite low for these cells, so they are targeted especially to portable applications, where energy and power density are more important than efficiency.
          A more efficient version of a direct fuel cell would play a key role in the theoretical use of methanol as a general energy transport medium

          1. SebastianH

            You didn’t answer the question. How much energy is needed to produce enough methanol to be able to drive 1 km? How much energy is needed to drive the same distance with a battery-electric vehicle of comparable size and weight?

  26. Kabud

    Methanol is an alternative fuel for internal combustion and other engines, either in combination with gasoline or directly (“neat”). It is used in racing cars in many countries. In the U.S., methanol fuel has received less attention than ethanol fuel as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. In general, ethanol is less toxic and has higher energy density, although methanol is less expensive to produce sustainably and is a less expensive way to reduce the carbon footprint.

    1. SebastianH

      I’ll ask again: how is methanol produced? How much energy do you have to put into production to get 1 kWh “on the wheels”? And if that energy comes from the same power grid that charges batteries in electric verhicles, how can that be any cleaner and “the future” as the interviewee claims?

      1. Kabud

        google.com, wikipedia also. Be brave, u can do it ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

        1. SebastianH

          I know the answer, I am trying to get you to the point where you see that synthetic fuels are nonsense, because it is not economical.

  27. Kabud

    Beginning in 1965, pure methanol was used widespread in USAC Indy car competition, which at the time included the Indianapolis 500.

  28. Kabud

    The State of California ran an experimental program from 1980 to 1990 that allowed anyone to convert a gasoline vehicle to 85% methanol with 15% additives of choice.

  29. Kabud

    First Geely Auto Methanol Vehicles Arrive in Iceland

    Reykjavik, Iceland, Feb 23, 2016. Geely Auto Group’s (Geely Auto) pure methanol vehicles will be taking to Icelandic roads following their unveiling earlier today at a methanol engine symposium organized by Carbon Recycling International (CRI) in Reykjavik, the capital city of Iceland.

    Initially six Emgrand EC7 methanol vehicles, which utilize a pure methanol 1.8L engine developed by Geely Auto, will enter a fleet trial in Iceland. The vehicles have been previously tried and tested throughout China in various fleets in Shanghai City, Shanxi and Guizhou provinces.

    The move follows an agreement signed last July by Geely Auto’s parent company Zhejiang Geely Holding Group to invest a total of US $45.5million in CRI. The investment consisted of an initial investment and additional purchases of CRI equity over a three-year period, which will allow Zhejiang Geely Group to become a major shareholder of CRI and gain representation on the company’s Board of Directors.

    CRI will use the EC7s to carry out further testing of methanol vehicles and fuels in Iceland to further explore methanol fuel technologies. The vehicles will operate on ‘liquid electricity’ from CRI’s pioneering power-to-methanol process. Renewable methanol produced by CRI’s process is sold in Europe underthe registered brand name ‘Vulcanol’.

    Geely Auto Group President and CEO Mr An Conghui commented: “We’re excited to see our methanol vehicles move from China to an international platform. By working directly with a fuel provider such as CRI we will be able to further expand our understanding of methanol in different climes and driving conditions.”

    Mr. KC-Tran,CEO of CRI, said: “Our cooperation with Geely is transitioning from an investor relationship into a wider partnership; we welcome Geely’s vehicles into this test pilot program and we are looking forward to sharing the results of our findings. This will give researchers, policy makers and others a much needed insight into the untapped possibilities of methanol as sustainable transport fuel.”


    CRI was founded in 2006 in Reykjavik, Iceland and has quickly become the world leader in developing technology to produce renewable methanol fuel from cleanenergy and recycled CO2 emissions. It operates the world’s first renewable power-to-methanol plant near Reykjavik.

    Geely Auto became the first auto manufacturer in China to conduct research and development into methanol vehicle solutions in 2005. The company is proactively working with partners internationally and domestically to expand the use of methanol-fuelled vehicles and has already deployed fleets of methanol-fuelled taxis in cities all over the country and has since invested significant resources in the development and promotion of methanol-fuelled engines and vehicles over a long period and has already made progress with this technology in China

  30. m e emberson

    Just a note.
    This may be a site you have not considered yet.


    Trolling to catch people in interminable arguments, often off the point,just for the hell of it.
    Trolling a fishing term not to be confused with trawling, apparently.

    1. Kabud

      many will be surprised to learn that “information” is not what they imagine. There are three basic flows of information:

      (1) Reliable `State` Information. This information will NEVER reach the general population and the common man. This is because it is the most precise information, and is delivered directly to the top leadership of the Country. It always has a security classification rating of either classified, secret, top secret, strategic importance, or destroy after reading. What I just described is absolutely reliable information. It is only destined for leadership.

      (2) The second flow of information which is absolutely essential: this is the largest, the Main Flow. The purpose of it is to kill people’s free time so that we won’t seriously analyze anything. No thoughts of any serious nature, I repeat. This is what psychologists call ‘informational noise,’ so the human being won’t have any time to take his thinking to a logical conclusion. This is a main information flow that that mass media is designed to deliver. This is what we see on TV, read in magazines and see in newspapers. We have to understand this.

      The popular entertainment has spread throughout the world. Meanwhile, the organized crime and other masterful manipulators ride the resulting wave of white noise.Movie and television producers put more sex and violence into the entertainment product. Decade by decade, audiences become addicted and fascinated by the resulting spectacle. They no longer think or analyze, until a moment is created for them to do so.

      (3) The third information flow is the most interesting, because this is the flow that SHAPES the architectural model of consciousness. The third (3) flow is a Specially Designed Flow, that differs from the aforementioned Main Flow(2) that numbs you, so that you crawl into bed without being able to finish your thoughts or even pray.

      All the informational messages of this third(3) flow are like the crack of a whip that dictates to me what particular barn I have to get to when I am thinking.







      Of course we may ask WHO IS IT , the designer ;0)

      Check the UN data on illicit drug markets and slave trade;

      also check the discourse of the communist party gold(30 000 tons)

      also advisable is to read on SHADOW BANKING.

      All of it will make perfect sense in the context of the volume of

      the total global finance and assets and global GDP.

      Only work work figures, thats how u learn

    2. AndyG55

      Note how long I have held seb in a status of his own incompetence.

      Trolls do not like being trolled back. 😉

      1. SebastianH

        You are apparently the insult+profanity+all-caps(+ a little bit of the persistent debate troll, e.g. last words, never give up) troll and Kenneth and I are just the persistent debate trolls 😉

        1. AndyG55

          You poor little nappy-wetter.

          Still totally FAILING to find one paper that shows CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          No wonder you feel so inadequate, you can’t even support the very basis of your fantasy AGW religion.

          You have sent your “cause” backwards to the dark ages, where it originated in the first place. 🙂

          You are just way to thick to realise it. 🙂

        2. AndyG55

          “Trolls do not like being trolled back. 😉”

          And sleb proves it immediately.

          takes hook, line….

          … and I caught myself another flapping mullet 🙂

          Ask yourself why you came here sleb.. ..

          ..and you know it wasn’t to debate, but to push your unsupportable AGW religion.

          You have FAILED MISERABLY, on both counts.

          1. SebastianH

            To find out if people which base their opinion (“there is no greenhouse effect”) on obviously wrong facts could change their opinion despite their strong beliefs.

            It turns out that people like you get only more aggravated and turn this into somekind of religious thing.

          2. AndyG55

            you poor petulant little child, vainly searching for relevance in an argument you know you cannot support.

            YOU are the one with ZERO PROOF of your CO2 warming conjecture/thought bubble/religion.

            Just keep running and hiding from that FACT.. its really funny to watch your abortive attempts at avoiding the issue. 🙂

            Your religion is UNSUPPORTABLE.. and you just keep on proving it with you TOTAL and COMPLETE INABILITY to provide one single bit of supporting evidence for the very basis of the farce that is the AGW cult religion..

            Its like trying to argue with a JW, no matter how often you show them their religion is based on empty space, they just keep DENYING the facts.

          3. SebastianH

            As you keep denying the fact that you measure the radiance of CO2?

            It is really maddening how you manage to ignore everything that contradicts your opinion and how you have to resort to insults. One paper (I provided more) will not prove anything to you since you shrug it off as false AGW-physics.

            Fact is: GHGs are the reason the planets mean surface temperature is as high as it is. The Lapse-rate (or gravito-thermal-effect) has nothing to with this. The ground temperature is determining the starting point of the temperature gradient, not the other way around (how would that even be possible?).

          4. AndyG55

            STILL no paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So sad that you cannot support your baseless religion.

            You have been shown FACTS that CO2 does not emit below 11km.. you ignore it.

            You have been showed peer review papers on the gravito/thermal effect.. you ignore them.

            The ONLY greenhouse effect is from H2O .. data shows that to be a FACT.. you ignore it.

            Yet when ask to provide a paper to support the very basis of the AGW scam.

            .. YOU FAIL MISERABLY !!

          5. AndyG55

            “Fact is: GHGs are the reason the planets mean surface temperature is as high as it is.”

            NO, Fact it is NOT !!

            It is an unproven assumption, as you keep showing by you total inability to present the necessary paper.

            The lapse rate has everything to do with it….. and ONLY H2O can affect that lapse rate, and ONLY as, or after, it has done its cooling job.

            CO2 has absolutely NO affect on the controlling mechanisms of the pressure-gradient driven convective, atmosphere.

            I think you actually KNOW this to be a FACT, but your job and pay relies on you DENYING this most basic fact.

          6. sod

            “NO, Fact it is NOT !!”

            well, it is you alone against everyone who has any knowledge on this subject. You love alternative facts?

          7. SebastianH

            One last time …

            You have been shown FACTS that CO2 does not emit below 11km.. you ignore it.

            Because it’s not true. Point a spectrometer at the sky and you’ll measure IR that is emitted by CO2: https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/downwelling-ground-up.jpg

            You have been showed peer review papers on the gravito/thermal effect.. you ignore them.

            Because this is not how it works. The temperature gradient without GHGs would begin at the surface with the surface temperature and decrease until it reaches the temperature of space. With GHGs you have more heating below because of backradiation and at a certain height radiative heat transfer takes over from the adiabatic process and convection stops (Tropopause). A little bit higher in the stratosphere the interaction between sunlight and ozone increases the temperature again.

            I explained it to you multiple times and yet you still think your “facts” are real and proven. No they aren’t.

            Have a nice day.

          8. AndyG55

            Again, sleb and slob show their ignorance and incompetence.

            CANNOT prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            And reject peer-review papers of the gravito thermal effect because.. wait for it “that’s not how it works”.. then invent a load of garbage they cannot support. Meaningless opinion explanation based on zero fact.
            A total mis-understanding of what actually controls the atmosphere.

            They now have the fairy-tale that GHG’s cause the lower atmosphere to be warmer, and by their idiotic thought-bubble, control the lapse rate.

            Seriously.. what a total LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.

            They are locked into a moronic brain-washed miasma of gross educational deficiencies that they will never be able to overcome.

          9. AndyG55

            “Have a nice day.”

            I will.. I have had my laugh for the morning.. can always rely on ignorant brain-washed kiddies like you to provide a note of moronic hilarity…

            … even if you are totally incapable of providing that one single paper that shows CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            No CO2 WARMING signal in the whole satellite record, while highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 continues to climb.

            No CO2 signal in sea level trends,

            No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE. !!

            That is because CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere…

            .. as you have amply proven.

          10. AndyG55

            Sob, adding your idiocy to his idiocy, is NOT going to help him.

          11. tom0mason

            Thanks seb for that link, I may reuse some of that information later.

            The caption for *that* graphic you quote reads —

            In the CO2 bands around wave number 667 a spectrometer pointed up from the ground sees radiation at very near surface temperature. In the cases above that near surface temperature was about 245 K in Barrow and 300 K at Nauru. The spectra are very different in form as a result of different humidities[sic] in the atmospheric window and ozone bands to the right. In the cold, dry air at Barrow the instrument reads near zero except for the ozone bands. Those photons are running away straight to space and there is nothing to see. In the warm, moist air of Nauru the window is very “dirty” and noisy due to scatter and radiation by water.

            Also as far as I see this is a ‘work in progress’ and not definitive science. Such statements as “Those photons are running away straight to space and there is nothing to see.” is not a reasonable scientific statement — photons do not ‘know’ in which direction to travel to get to space.

            Please be aware that as far as I can see the experimenter has not taken into consideration the lower atmospheric layer heights at Barrow compared to Nauru. Also note that at Nauru with its higher humidity water dominates — it out competes CO2 in grabbing the IR energy just because it is so abundant. Point a spectrometer at the sky and you’ll measure IR that is emitted by water.
            This is from a peer reviewed science paper that expressly shows CO2 in the *stratosphere* is very active cooling the planet.
            Please see this figure (Figure from: Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website.)
            Which shows —

            Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colours from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. Figure from: Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website.

            Note that below the stratosphere there is next to no available IR radiation at frequencies that could excite that rare (400ppm) CO2 at ground level (As shown in the Barrow plot you quote?)

  31. Kabud

    insignificant losers can not even maintain a decent level of discussion

  32. sod

    Do people here understand, that when the chicken egg problems get solved, we suddenly start to get a lot of both eggs and chicken???

    Reloading opportunities are spreading fast:


    New cars have a lower price and much bigger range:


    But hey, just keep you head stuck in the sand, and you will be able to evade reality and facts…

  33. A C Osborn

    If Electric Vehicles were to actually take over I wonder what they will do with Billions of gallons of Oil & Diesel that they will have sloshing around.
    After all the world will still need all the other products that come from “Cracking Oil”, like Plastics etc.

    1. sod

      “If Electric Vehicles were to actually take over I wonder what they will do with Billions of gallons of Oil & Diesel that they will have sloshing around”

      the transmission will not happen in a second. are you really worried about diesel being left over? That is insane!

      1. AndyG55

        “the transmission will not happen in a second”

        silly sob..

        I know you are high on those magic mushrooms again.

        I think I know what you meant to say.. maybe

  34. Kabud

    there are over 1 200 000 000 vehicles riding the Earth today
    at best there are 2 000 000 EVs
    in 15 years we expect the TOTAL number of vehicles on Earth to be
    2 000 000 000 (2 billions)
    EVs are sold today globally at the rate of around 800 000 a year
    In 2015 550 000 EVs were sold globally
    IN 2016 778 000 EVs were sold globally
    So: in 15 years there could be
    20 million and 400 millions EVS on earth,

    depending on the sales figures

    So, make your bets 😉
    2 billion total vehicles
    this simple calculation shows that EV will have
    ONE PERCENT (1%) of global vehicle fleet in year close to 2035

  35. Kabud

    it is MY BET: EVs will take ONE PERCENT (1%) of global vehicle fleet
    in year close to 2035

    1. sod

      “it is MY BET: EVs will take ONE PERCENT (1%) of global vehicle fleet
      in year close to 2035”

      your approach does not make any sense at all. It is a bet on the structure of the global market for used cars and has nearly no connection to electric cars at all.

      The relevant number is this one: What will be the percentage of electric cars among new cars being sold in 2035?

      Can we agree that that number might very well be above 50%?

      1. Kabud

        YESTERDAY TESLA announced 121 million loss in the 4th quarter
        My approach is EXACTLY CORRECT. EV sales is reaching its top point (maximum) in 2017 or for the wishful thinkers, may be 2018.

        Just remember my prediction.

  36. AndyG55

    “Can we agree that that number might very well be above 50%?

    There’s going to have to some massive breakthroughs for that to happen.

    But keep “dreaming”, sob


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy