German Professor Of Mechanical Engineering Says Electric Mobility “A Pointless Dream”…”Will Never Work”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Ingolstadt-today.de here reports on Professor Dr. Jörg Wellnitz from the Technical University in Ingolstadt calling the future of electric cars a “pointless dream” and that this is an opinion shared by many other experts.

Mechanical engineering professor says electric mobility “will never work”. Photo credit

“Pointless” endeavor

“The uncompromising path to e-mobility is as pointless as it is without any discernible effect on the Earth’s climate,” he told the Ingolstadt-today.de. “The German professor of mechanical engineering has “stepped on a lot of people’s toes with this,” the Ingolstadt-today.de reports.

E-mobility has become a “question of faith,” Wellnitz says, adding that “people either believe in the evil CO2 as a climate killer, or they don’t.”

Enormous costs for no benefit

Wellnitz quotes Danish climate researcher Björn Lomborg, who sees Germany’s foray into green energy as a huge waste of resources, and who calculated that if Germany spent 43 billion on CO2 reduction over 80 years, global warming would be reduced by just 0.01 degrees.”

Industrial suicide for Germany

Wellnitz thinks that the ambitious targets for sales of electric cars will end with a slump in sales for German car manufacturers, is sure the electric car “can’t work”, that it is “industrial suicide”and it too is also “a climate catastrophe”. He thinks people should be given what they need, a highly efficient and clean engine like the diesel, for example.

According to Wellnitz, around eight percent of global CO2 emissions are attributable to the car.

CO2 easy to politicize

The distinguished expert also says CO2 is not a climate killer, but a vital gas, one that it is extremely easy to politicize. “It is easy to turn this screw, everyone understands it and it can be measured immediately, people believe. But recent research, says Wellnitz, has shown that even if the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere were to reach 800 ppm, an almost unattainable value, global warming would only be affected by around 0.4 degrees.

He adds: “If there is a greenhouse effect, it’s been around for a long time.” Other gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs are far more harmful to the climate and relevant to global warming than CO2, writes Ingolstadt-today.de. “But we focused on CO2 and the car has to be evil,” says Wellnitz.

“Massive renunciation of cherished amenities”

The professor of mechanical engineering also claims that a climate-neutral Europe is impossible as long as we produce our goods in China or India and that consumer behavior would have to change radically if we want to achieve CO2 neutrality. In plain language that would mean: “a massive renunciation of cherished amenities.”

Ingolstadt-today.de also writes that Wellnitz also reacts with some incomprehension to “15-year-old climate ambassadors who don’t even know how to spell C02, but who let their parents drive them to tree-planting campaigns in their SUVs.”

Middle Age trading of indulgences

Wellnitz himself says CO2 has become a question of faith and that the trade in pollution certificates is reminiscent of the indulgence trade of the Middle Ages. For him it makes more sense to prepare for global warming of two degrees and that the shortage of water will become a massive problem for the next decades, a problem that is not as easy to solve as the problem with fossil fuels.

“Will never work”

Germany is sacrificing its high level of competence in engine design for an electrical future that, according to Wellnitz, “will never work.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

22 responses to “German Professor Of Mechanical Engineering Says Electric Mobility “A Pointless Dream”…”Will Never Work””

  1. Stephen Wilde

    There is a new challenge to the CO2 hypothesis which states that the surface temperature is due to atmospheric mass being convected up and down and not due to radiative gases:

    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model

  2. Kenan Meyer

    For those who don’t know: Ingoldstadt is home to AUDI. So, I bet climate alarmists are going to dismiss him as a lobbyist

  3. Greta

    “a highly efficient and clean engine like the diesel”

    Efficient? Maybe.
    Clean? I’d like to see the evidence for that claim!

    1. Adam Gallon
    2. Johannes S. Herbst

      Modern Diesel engines release less particulate matter than they suck.

  4. George R

    Nice to see a common sense response to the present insane dive into unproven “climate science” and the headlong rush to solve a problem that is more likely non existent.
    If, as the most fervent believers if this new religion suggest, we have such a short time to solve it and that life as we know it has such a short time, then we should start rapidly to adjust where adjustment has made sense, but been ignored for generations already. For example, move the homes and assets that are close to sea level up a few metres in altitude, then they will be out of harm’s way; total cost a lot less than any of the present directions.
    As for solutions to lower human impact on the planet, the Western world has made huge progress in design and implementation of many very effective improvements that have already reduced our input of the so called culprits. If there is actually still more we can do that makes sense, we will do it and it will be market driven and not idealism driven.
    I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to see our planet protected from the misuse of our environment by pollutants like plastic being disposed improperly as is often the case now, but doing the reduction of plastics is very achievable by an appropriate focus on reduction of single use products and proper collection and real recycling where this is truly feasible. Where a proper result can not be achieved, then obsolete those products and let the market present suitable alternates that will. We do need to stop plastics getting into out waterways and our oceans, this is achievable.
    Let those like this Professor who are not blinded by the present hysteria continue to design and build the solutions that actually will work.

  5. George R

    Nice to see a common sense response to the present insane dive into unproven “climate science” and the headlong rush to solve a problem that is more likely non existent.
    If, as the most fervent believers if this new religion suggest, we have such a short time to solve it and that life as we know it has such a short time, then we should start rapidly to adjust where adjustment has made sense, but been ignored for generations already. For example, move the homes and assets that are close to sea level up a few metres in altitude, then they will be out of harm’s way; total cost a lot less than any of the present directions.
    As for solutions to lower human impact on the planet, the Western world has made huge progress in design and implementation of many very effective improvements that have already reduced our input of the so called culprits. If there is actually still more we can do that makes sense, we will do it and it will be market driven and not idealism driven.
    I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to see our planet protected from the misuse of our environment by pollutants like plastic being disposed improperly as is often the case now, but doing the reduction of plastics is very achievable by an appropriate focus on reduction of single use products and proper collection and real recycling where this is truly feasible. Where a proper result can not be achieved, then obsolete those products and let the market present suitable alternates that will. We do need to stop plastics getting into out waterways and our oceans, this is achievable.
    Let those like this Professor who are not blinded by the present hysteria continue to design and build the solutions that actually will work.

  6. Jake J

    I suggest that you republish the entire article in English. As the owner of an EV and a diesel truck, and as someone who does not think the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is valid, I think it’s foolish to suggest that EVs will “never work.”

    EVs already work. At this stage in their development, I don’t think they are suitable replacements for gassers, nor do I think they make any difference on the CO2 front (even if you think CO2 is a problem, which I don’t.) But they will “never work?” Sorry, but that’s simply not true. My EV works just fine.

    1. A C Osborn

      Of course they work, just as they did over 100 years ago.
      But do they work better than ICE vehicles and much more improtantly will they work to “save the climate”?
      The on thing that they do well is keep the air of cities cleaner than old ICE vehicles, but not much cleaner than the latest generation Diesels.
      Would you still buy one and run it if you had to pay the full price and had no advantages of not paying real Taxation.
      If you were paying full taxation they would not be cheaper to run than ICE vehicles.

  7. Zoe Phin

    It’s annoying that people still think atmo gas composition has anything to do with the surface temperature.

    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

    Happy Holiday y’all 🙂

  8. German Professor: Electric Mobility “A Pointless Dream” – Truth is difficult but essential…
  9. rob smith (@grumpypostie)

    Lomborg is not a climate researcher .

  10. rob smith (@grumpypostie)

    Wellnitz is a professor of mechanical engineering. Highlighting his opinion on climate change is like asking a chef to fix my toothache. And Lomborg is not a climate researcher.

  11. geoff Peters

    The EV’s dirty little secret, their carbon footprint is larger than similar sized gasolione cars, not just because fossil fuels are the primary source of energy to charge their batteries, but the energy intensity making the battery, mining Lithium and Cobalt, rare Earths from China, and an incredible amount of energy producing the battery itself. One reason why EVs cost more to produce than gasoline/diesel cars, though the vehicle itself is easier to assemble.

    https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/evs-co2-rethink/

    https://factnotfiction.media/2019/04/11/swedish-study-on-ev-co2-footprint-will-surprise/

  12. German Prof: Electric Mobility ‘A Pointless Dream’ | Blackwood Report

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  13. drumphish

    Always helps to compare and contrast.

    100 Kwh to charge a Tesla to full. Twelve dollars, 150 mile range, might be more.

    15,000 miles per year, 1200 USD for electricity.

    10,000 Kwh consumed to charge your car’s battery for the year.

    150,000 miles, new battery time. Be prepared to plunk down five grand, won’t avoid the cost if you want to keep driving your EV.

    A 12 volt battery seldom needs charging, always plenty of amps to the starter to turn the ring gear, the fuel combustion, explosion, you can go 300 miles for 45 dollars. 50 times 45, 2250 dollars to drive 150,000 miles with an ICE. Ten oil changes, 400 dollars.

    Won’t have to stop and charge the battery like you would do with a Tesla. The battery is always discharging, the nature of the beast. The fire hazard must have an insurance risk, additional insurance coverage for the fire risk.

    The gas in the tank can remain less than full, you still have just as much power with not too much to worry about.

    Worth far more to have the gas in the tank than to be always using electricity to charge your EV, hands down.

    Would never trust driving an electric vehicle during the cold winter months.

    Gots to have a vehicle with an engine that is reliable at all times, it has to be internal combustion fueled by gasoline.

    You don’t need a power plant to keep your car ready to go.

    XOM can handle it, you do need an entire oil industry, however, the industry existed before the horseless carriage.

    Vindicating Capitalism

    1. drumphish

      Made a math error by a factor of 10. 500 x 45 = 22,500, 500 x 300 = 150,000

      22,500 dollars to drive the 150,000 miles, not the low number of 2250 USD.

      Everybody makes mistakes. Still just ten oil changes, no change there. Synthetic oil lasts ten times longer, reduces engine wear.

      I’ll accept the Darwin Award for math errors. So sotty.

  14. German Professor: Electric Mobility ‘A Pointless Dream’, ‘Will Never Work’ | altnews.org

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  15. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #392 | Watts Up With That?
  16. Weekly local weather and power abstract # 392 – Next Gadget

    […] German Professor Of Mechanical Engineering Says Electric Mobility “A Pointless Dream”&#8… […]

  17. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #392 – All My Daily News
  18. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #392 – Daily News

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

Close