STATUS ELECTROMOBILITY 2023: WHY THE ELECTRIC CAR IS NOT THE SOLUTION AS IT IS

Abstract

The electric car will prevail, whether technically and economically superior or politically desired. But how we are currently implementing it will neither solve traffic problems nor save the environment—a plea for more objectivity, sustainability, and innovative approaches.

Full text

Markus Lienkamp
xxx
STATUS ELECTROMOBILITY 2023:
WHY THE ELECTRIC CAR IS NOT
THE SOLUTION AS IT IS
The electric car will prevail,
whether technically and economi-
cally superior or politically desired.
But how we are currently imple-
menting it will neither solve traffic
problems nor save the environ-
ment—a plea for more objectivity,
sustainability, and innovative ap-
proaches.
Markus Lienkamp

I
Status electromobility 2023
Foreword
For reasons of secrecy, as in the books already published
on the same subject, I will strongly generalize or refer only
to freely available information but try to classify and inter-
pret it technically.
It is my view of the data, thus my assessment and personal
opinion. I do not claim absolute truth, but I would like to
stimulate discussion with this book. I will essentially illumi-
nate the situation in Germany and, in a broader sense, for
the EU.
The book has again been published online on Re-
searchGate for wide distribution and to make it available to
our students for free.
I hope you enjoy reading it, and look forward to your feed-
back.
Completed in August 2023,
Markus Lienkamp

II
Status electromobility 2023
Acknowledgment
I thank my wife, Annette, for proofreading the book.
I want to thank my team leaders, Clemens Pizzinini and
Philipp Rosner, for proofreading and numerous comments
that led to the improvement of this book. I thank Esteban
Rivera for the images on the cover page. I acknowledge
fruitful discussions with a colleague in economics for valu-
able comments on the economic aspects. However, I take
responsibility for all statements made in this book.
I want to thank ResearchGate for providing the portal and,
thus, the opportunity to make this book available to you,
the reader, free of charge. You can find the book as a
download at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Markus-Lienkamp/publications
The registration at ResearchGate and the download are
free of charge. Through the download, we researchers
gain a scientific reputation.
This work was created without an external sponsor's finan-
cial support and reflects my opinion.
DeepL has translated the book, and I have checked it for
the right content. I trusted Grammarly for spelling, pronun-
ciation, and grammar.
I integrated feedback from the German version concerning
Stellantis into this book.

III
Status electromobility 2023
Internationally common abbreviations
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CO2 eq. CO equivalent
eFuels Liquid or gaseous fuels produced from CO2 and
electrical energy. Also referred to as power-to-liq-
uid or synthetic fuels.
EV Electric Vehicle
E-GMP Electric Global Modular Platform from Hyundai
CFC chlorinated hydrofluorocarbons
g/kmCO2 CO2 emissions in grams per kilometer
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ICEV Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
IGBT insulated gate bipolar transistor
LFP Lithium iron phosphate
MEB modular electric modular system from Volkswagen
NCA Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum
NMC Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PT Public transport
PHEV Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle: 20 - 50 km range.
Beyond that, the vehicle continues to run on liquid
fuel.
P&R Park and Ride
PV Photovoltaics
SiC Silicon carbide
TCO Total Cost of Ownership, including all internal
costs.

IV
Status electromobility 2023
Content
1 Trends ....................................................................... 6
1.1 What is the right energy source? ........................ 6
1.2 EU and China go electric .................................... 7
1.3 CO2 -real emissions increase ............................. 8
1.4 Traffic load increases .......................................... 9
2 Sustainability ........................................................... 12
2.1 Definition ........................................................... 12
Ecological ................................................... 12
Economic/economic ................................... 14
Social ......................................................... 16
The "Sustainability Tablecloth .................... 17
2.2 Calculation of CO emissions2 ........................... 18
Parallel method, delta method, current mix 18
Production and Operation .......................... 21
2.3 Golden rule for total CO emissions2 .................. 22
3 Mobility rethought .................................................... 24
3.1 Opportunities and market mechanisms to increase
sustainability ............................................................... 25
3.2 Promote and punish .......................................... 28
3.3 How do we specifically reduce CO2 emissions
from transport? ........................................................... 29
3.4 Future mobility in rural areas ............................ 31
3.5 Future mobility in the city .................................. 32
3.6 Future mobility for commuters .......................... 36
3.7 Speed limit vs. own wallet ................................. 37
3.8 Future mobility for goods .................................. 40
3.9 Why ideas are not implemented in Germany .... 41
4 Consequences and Necessary Measures ............... 43
4.1 Policy ................................................................ 43
4.2 OEM ................................................................. 45
4.3 Suppliers ........................................................... 47

V
Status electromobility 2023
4.4 Customers ........................................................ 47
5 Who will succeed? ................................................... 48
5.1 OEM Top Group ............................................... 49
VW Group (VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda) .............. 49
Tesla .......................................................... 51
BYD ............................................................ 53
5.2 OEM middle group ............................................ 54
JAC/Great Wall Motors/Xpeng/Nio ............. 54
Renault/Nissan ........................................... 55
Mercedes-Benz .......................................... 56
Hyundai/Kia ................................................ 57
BMW .......................................................... 58
5.3 OEM last group ................................................. 59
Toyota ........................................................ 59
Stellantis..................................................... 60
Ford/GM ..................................................... 61
6 Conclusion and principle of hope ............................ 62
7 Sources ................................................................... 43
8 Author ...................................................................... 65

6
Status electromobility 2023
1 Trends
I wrote my last book shortly after the coronavirus erupted
in the spring of 2020. Initially, I didn't want to write another
book: The decisions have been made in politics and busi-
ness, and the electric car (Battery Electric Vehicle: BEV)
has been set as the best foreseeable solution. So why
write another book to dispel the same myths, misinfor-
mation, and fears as the previous ones?
So now we have the environmentally friendly electric car
(or a sports utility vehicle: SUV) produced and operated
with renewable energies - and therefore CO2-free. All we
need now is enough of it, and then it's time:
"Mission accomplished..."
Unfortunately not, because the way we are currently de-
signing and using electric cars does not achieve the es-
sential goal of reducing environmental pollution (I am de-
liberately not talking about environmental protection here!).
I will discuss this in detail in the following chapters.
First, I would like to highlight the current developments and
trends.
1.1 What is the right energy source?
From a technical point of view, the only potentially CO2-
free energy sources and converters are the battery with
electric drive, hydrogen with the fuel cell or internal com-
bustion engine (ICE), and synthetic fuels, called eFuels.
Hydrogen vehicles always cost more than the other two
options. In the foreseeable future (i.e., until about 2030),
eFuels are only profitable for mileages below 5000
km/year (derived in the book "Status Electromobility 2020").
Above this, the BEV is the most cost-effective alternative
and is therefore also massively promoted by politicians
and even required by law and chosen by the industry.

7
Status electromobility 2023
However, the idea of eFuels is right because, with ever-
decreasing costs for photovoltaic (PV) electricity, they
might become attractive again in the distant future. PV
electricity can already be produced in sunny regions at one
cent per kWh. The costs for electrolysis and subsequent
synthesis into fuel are added to this. Thus, costs of less
than 1€/l are mentioned in studies. So, this is not entirely
out of the world, and maybe in 25 years, we might have so
much PV electricity that we will hardly know where to put
it. However, eFuels are needed for (long- and medium-
range) aircraft because there are no alternative technical
options in sight, except perhaps hydrogen. The demand in
this field of application will be so high that I assume that
eFuels will not be available in large quantities for cars and
trucks for a long time. But as demand increases, produc-
tion will become more cost-effective and thus possibly at-
tractive for vehicles. By then, however, the batteries in
BEVs will have developed so that, from a cost perspective,
ICEs could only play a role for particular vehicles or classic
cars.
1.2 EU and China go electric
The EU is largely banning the internal combustion engine
in passenger cars from 2035 on. Some countries have
tried to slow down or at least water the plan. ICEVs (ICE
Vehicles), which can only be fueled with eFuels, have been
allowed as a compromise.
China is on a similar path to the EU and already has a
share of BEVs in new passenger car registrations of over
30%. The rest of the world will follow - perhaps more slowly.
And this is not because the electric vehicle is being politi-
cally promoted and demanded but because it is becoming
more cost-effective than the combustion engine. Mass pro-
duction and innovations are driving down costs and, thus,
prices. Combined with the possible favorable costs for en-
ergy generation with PV, BEVs will be cheaper in total fees
than ICEVs.

8
Status electromobility 2023
1.3 CO2 real emissions increase
Unfortunately, the switch to BEVs, as currently regulated
in the EU, may even increase CO2 emissions. There are
several reasons for this:
The EU has defined that BEVs emit no CO2 during opera-
tion. This has resulted in BEVs becoming larger and heav-
ier than their ICEV counterparts. Therefore, energy con-
sumption during production and operation is higher than
previous ICEVs. In sum, thus, energy consumption in-
creases first, regardless of the source of that energy. Cal-
culated using the mix method (explained later); however,
this ultimately means a CO2 increase.
The number of vehicles that can be sold is not limited. If
the OEM sells an additional BEV, it can also sell an addi-
tional ICEV. Customers could purchase an additional ICEV
because of the range limitations of the BEV. Further, au-
tomakers (OEMs) have the option to sell more BEVs than
required to meet fleet emissions. This surplus budget can
then be used to sell larger ICEVs (again, SUVs are wel-
come) with higher CO2 emissions.
The EU's CO2 emissions trading system includes energy
consumption during production. However, imported en-
ergy, such as battery cells from Asia, must be included.
Company cars are another problem: In Germany, almost
2/3 of all new vehicles are sold to commercial customers.
Only about 1/3 of new cars are bought by private custom-
ers. Company vehicles are often also used a lot privately.
Due to tax regulations in Germany, the company car driver
only pays a percentage of the purchase price plus a sur-
charge for commuting to work. The employer then pays for
the fuel, regardless of how much the company car user
drives privately. This means a flat rate for company car
drivers. In line with employee preferences, companies con-
tinue to buy large and, therefore CO2-intensive vehicles,
whether BEVs or ICEVs. These vehicles are often kept for
only a few years and thus dominate the overall vehicle fleet.
To really reduce the burden on the environment, policy-
makers need to start with company cars and create suffi-
cient incentives to buy smaller vehicles again.

9
Status electromobility 2023
However, this process will take a long time because mass
upgrading (in the physical sense) has been taking place for
years. Of course, a heavy vehicle has a purely physical
advantage in a crash, so many buyers do not want to drive
a small car out of concern for life and limb. In addition,
large vehicles are naturally roomier and more comfortable.
The goal must be that fewer cars are required and that they
become smaller and lighter again. I will show precisely how
this can be done effectively in the book.
1.4 Traffic load increases
In Germany, the number of vehicles has been growing
continuously. All these vehicles are also driven, as in-
tended, leading to more traffic and, thus, inevitably to traffic
jams. They also require additional parking space in cities
that are already densely populated.
Anyone who thinks that traffic is declining due to seemingly
beneficial inventions such as mobile work is mistaken.
People who work mobile make more private trips and over-
compensate for the trips they no longer cause to work.
Business trips, including commutes, account for about
one-third of kilometers driven, and private trips account for
two-thirds. Of this, half is spent on leisure time and the
other half on necessary errands such as shopping or edu-
cation.
Especially in metropolitan areas, the car, which only one
person often occupies, leads to inefficiencies in the
transport system. For this reason, there has been a fierce
dispute about space distribution between cars, cyclists, pe-
destrians, parking spaces, recreation, and local public
transport (PT).
In cities with good transport links, young people and those
without children hardly need their own vehicle. There are
sufficient car-sharing offers, public transport is well devel-
oped with tight intervals, long-distance trains can be
reached quickly, and the ecologically questionable flights
are CO2-compensated. Short distances can be covered
with a cargo bike or city scooter. And already, you are en-
vironmentally correct - without a car - socially accepted.

10
Status electromobility 2023
Unfortunately, it is not that easy for many people without a
car. Elderly or disabled people are dependent on it. Fami-
lies can only manage the transport of children or extensive
shopping with it, and visits or trips on the weekend are also
tricky.
In rural areas, however, the car is the solution to mobility
needs: it is maximally flexible, saves time, and is the best
ecologically and economically solution. Yes, many people
don't want to admit it, but an empty bus on public transport
is an economic and ecological disaster. I like to use what I
call the "ghost bus" in my town of Garching as an example.
I have rarely seen people in it except the driver, but it has
been driving blithely through my residential area every day
for 14 years—a sign of an oversupply of public transport in
this area.
Rural residents are, therefore, largely dependent on their
personal cars. The distances are longer than in the city and
can therefore not be covered on foot or by bicycle; public
transport is hardly developed and, with a bit of luck, runs
every hour. Often, the car allows mobility in less than half
the time than public transport.
Commuters live in the suburbs or extended suburbs and
have to put up with commutes of half an hour to an hour
each way. In some cases, public transport does not exist;
if it does, transfer times cost a lot of time. Often, public
transportation is so unreliable, not only in the Munich area,
that it is only a serious alternative to the car under certain
conditions. Park & Ride offers often swallow up much time
or are inconvenient, so people prefer to drive immediately
and switch to off-peak times. Mobile work contributes to
workers moving further away from the workplace and com-
muting less frequently but even further. Commuters need
a car for their leisure and everyday activities anyway, so
they want to commute to work by car.
A conflict between urban and rural areas is emerging: city
dwellers don't like commuters because they clog up cities
and contribute to noise and exhaust pollution. Because of
time constraints, commuters want to use their own car to
travel to the town. And the city dwellers like to have their
personal car to go to the countryside on weekends, where

11
Status electromobility 2023
they are not so welcome by the country dwellers if the traf-
fic is too heavy.

12
Status electromobility 2023
2 Sustainability
Unfortunately, today's discussion on transport - and even
more so on cars - focuses only on CO2. However, sustain-
ability, which is crucial for humanity, has many more as-
pects that I would like to highlight in this chapter. Prioritiz-
ing only one facet of sustainability, in this case CO2, leads
to economic and social resistance so that not even the
original concern is implemented.
2.1 Definition
The term sustainability comes from forestry and is driven
by the idea that you should not take more wood from a
forest than can grow back. Since traffic does not produce
biomass but consumes resources, it cannot be sustainable
for this reason alone. Traffic always harms the environ-
ment. I therefore speak only of less polluting cars and
never of environmentally friendly vehicles.
Sustainability includes the aspect of ecology first and fore-
most. However, this does not exclusively mean CO2.
Ecological
This aspect is composed of the following sub-criteria:
CO2: This most prominent part is produced during the ex-
traction, processing, transport, and combustion of all fossil
fuels. In transportation, this is crude oil to well over 90 %.
Natural gas hardly plays a role; biofuels are not really rel-
evant worldwide as an admixture.
However, CO2 is also released to a considerable extent in
the production of vehicles if we again consider the electric-
ity mix. The production of battery cells is particularly en-
ergy-intensive. This is why small batteries (with a shorter
range, of course) in vehicles are fundamentally desirable
from an ecological point of view. Cells based on lithium iron

13
Status electromobility 2023
phosphate (LFP) have an energy requirement about 1/3
lower than cells based on nickel, manganese, aluminum,
and/or cobalt (NMC/NCA). Unfortunately, LFP cells are
significantly heavier, increasing the vehicle’s energy con-
sumption. Currently, sodium-based batteries are being dis-
cussed, which again require considerably less scarce raw
materials and energy for production.
The high global warming potential of natural gas is largely
unknown. This escapes during extraction, transport, and
incomplete combustion and means that vehicles powered
by natural gas are hardly better than engines powered by
gasoline or diesel in terms of equivalent CO2 emissions
(CO2 eq.).
Land: This includes acidification, e.g., through the emis-
sion of sulfur from coal-fired power plants, as well as eco-
toxicity, i.e., pollutants such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium.
Over-fertilization by nitrogen or phosphorus, used, for ex-
ample, in the production of biofuels, is equally damaging
to the environment. Biofuels cause land use in the context
of mobility, but also to a much lesser extent by wind tur-
bines or PV systems in the wild. Water is a scarce resource
and is used in the production of all materials, as well as in
the production of biofuels.
Toxicity for humans: Pollutants play a role here, such as
particulate matter, which ICEs produce, but also tire abra-
sion and brake dust. Coal-fired power plants play a signifi-
cant role, especially in countries that do not have extensive
fine dust filters - as we do in Germany. Other substances
include lead, which used to be contained in gasoline, or
unburned hydrocarbons from combustion processes. Ni-
trogen oxides are released in diesel engines but also in
direct-injection gasoline engines. People are exposed to
radiation when mining raw materials, especially uranium,
which is needed for nuclear power plants. Ozone near the
ground is formed during combustion processes.
Atmosphere: This is primarily damaged by ozone-deplet-
ing substances. These are chlorinated fluorocarbons
(CFCs), but they no longer play a role due to a halt in pro-
duction.

14
Status electromobility 2023
Resource consumption: The extraction of raw materials
is associated with environmental damage. However, re-
source consumption in itself is not really environmental
damage. Still, it is intended to illustrate that raw materials
are finite and cannot be recycled entirely and as often as
desired. In addition, the most accessible raw materials to
extract are extracted at the beginning, so future genera-
tions will have to expend more energy to remove other,
more difficult to explore, raw materials as they are con-
sumed.
This collection of environmental damage comes from the
Joint Research Centre of the European Union (EU). It has
weighted the individual environmental damages against
each other to evaluate the total environmental damage.
It is not only the CO2 that is decisive but that the overall
environmental damage must be included. My former doc-
toral student Sebastian Wolff has shown for trucks that in
this general environmental consideration, eFuels perform
worse than fossil diesel fuel, even though they emit less
CO2 than BEVs or fossil fuels. By the way, the argument
about CO2 emissions and costs of eFuels, hydrogen, BEVs,
and the inclusion of production and recycling could be
saved with the socially extended cap-and-trade approach
I will describe later.
Unfortunately, the ecological advantage of new technolo-
gies is often eroded by increasing customer demands. If
the OEM develops a more efficient engine, the customer
buys a larger vehicle, so consumption with this new vehicle
is again the same as with the old smaller car. This effect is
called the "bounce-back effect" and eats up much of the
efficiency gains. Here, too, only a cap-and-trade approach
can help.
Economic/economical
Innovations will only succeed in the market in the long term
if they are economical. Otherwise, the companies in ques-
tion will quickly become insolvent. Then, the product does
not go into mass production, and no innovation occurs. In
such a case, the state could, of course, subsidize these
supposedly ecological - but not economical - technologies

15
Status electromobility 2023
or force such a solution by law so that the customers pay
this additional price. It makes more sense for the state to
ensure that the most ecological solution becomes the most
economical. And this can succeed under two conditions:
1. All internal costs over the entire life cycle must be
transparent to the customer at purchase. We are
talking about full costs or total cost of ownership, i.e.,
all acquisition, operating, insurance, maintenance,
and disposal costs. In the case of leased vehicles,
this is done quite well via the leasing rate, which in-
cludes all costs. Freight forwarders also calculate
this way. The pure store price, often set low as a
teaser price, reflects only a part of the full costs.
2. Also, all external costs must be charged to the pol-
luter, i.e., internalized, e.g., a price must be set for
CO2 emissions. Costs for accidents, land use, acid-
ification, etc., have to be considered. This is not triv-
ial to implement, but it is essential for the idea of
reconciling ecology and economy. Taxes and sub-
sidies must first be completely eliminated for an
honest comparison of technologies. Of course, the
state can then use taxes and subsidies to achieve a
steering effect, e.g., for a technology push to de-
crease costs per unit or simply to generate income.
Daniel Schröder has calculated all costs, i.e., total
costs plus external costs, for various means of
transport at our chair. Surprisingly, electric scooters
perform worst because they have the highest acci-
dent costs. Walking comes out best because the
positive health benefits outweigh all other costs:

16
Status electromobility 2023
Figure 1: Internal and external costs of different modes of transport
(Schröder et al., 2022).
Nevertheless, the chicken-and-egg problem often remains.
The technology that will make sense in the future will only
become the most economical (in total costs with internali-
zation of external costs) as the number of units and result-
ing production innovations increase. A good example is
photovoltaics, which was unaffordable initially and subsi-
dized for almost decades. In such cases, engineers must
make the best possible forecasts of the cost degression of
the various technologies; politicians must then ensure that
the best technology is subsidized until it has been brought
into large-scale production and can then be produced eco-
nomically through economies of scale. Estimating this
meaningfully will remain a major challenge of technology
and politics. And, if technology never becomes economi-
cally viable at total cost, the question must be asked
whether it is ecological.
Social
The third aspect of the sustainability definition is the social
impact of technologies. In the automotive sector, social
problems are found, particularly in mining raw materials.
One prominent example is child labor in the mining of co-
balt in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The recycling of
raw materials is not better in some cases. For example, in
Africa lead batteries or electronic scrap are not correctly
recycled. The toxic fumes harm people.

17
Status electromobility 2023
In addition, I also see the different sizes of cars as social
problems, which lead to a socially unfair distribution of the
risk of damage in the event of an accident or mixed traffic
between cars and bicycles or pedestrians with an ever-in-
creasing risk to the weaker road users.
In the same way, social injustices arise from today's toll
systems or higher fuel prices because poorer classes are
excluded from car traffic. I can still hear the words of a
manager of a premium manufacturer who raved about a
fuel price of 5 DM (2,5€) per liter at that time because then
his customers would finally have a free ride again.
Social aspects include the high cost of purchasing a BEV,
access to charging infrastructure, and the urban-rural di-
vide, both financially and in terms of access to mobility.
Social injustice can mean that new technologies, regula-
tions, or taxation are politically unenforceable. Examples
are the yellow vest protests in France or the current emo-
tional discussions about the latest heating law in Germany.
The sustainability tablecloth
Everyone will surely agree that we need to reduce CO2
emissions. We could now subordinate all decisions to this.
Some people are calling for nuclear power plants to be
shut down because their waste cannot be expected to be
disposed of by future generations. Consequently, these
power plants must then be shut down. It is also ethically
unacceptable to let people die from particulate matter - as
a consequence, we should shut down all coal-fired power
plants. It is ethically just as irresponsible to let people
starve and freeze - so we switch all power plants back on.
This focus on a single aspect is called ethics of mind. It
contrasts with responsibility ethics, where a fair compro-
mise must be found with limited resources and conflicting
goals. If you pull on one corner of the tablecloth, inevitably,
the cloth slips down on another corner. The fabric is finite
in size - even if some politicians do not want to realize this.
The solution of increasing the size of the tablecloth by tak-
ing on debt (or, in new German, "special assets") naturally

18
Status electromobility 2023
leads to ignoring the financial resilience of the next gener-
ation, who will have to pay back this debt. If not before,
these debts and thus expenditures lead to inflation.
I hope that I have convinced you in this chapter on sustain-
ability that the exclusive consideration of CO2 does not
necessarily result in a sustainable solution. Nevertheless,
the following remarks will again turn intensively to CO2 as
a proxy for many environmental burdens.
2.2 Calculation of CO2 emissions
In the introduction, I described the reasoning of a sustain-
ability manager of a German premium OEM: The BEVs are
produced only with CO2-free electricity, the supply chains
are traceably green (whatever that means), and in opera-
tion, the owner chooses the green electricity tariff. The in-
terior is vegan leather so that you can drive a three-ton
SUV again with a maximum green conscience. Somehow,
you probably also notice that something is not correct. And
that has to do with the balance sheet.
Parallel method, delta method, current mix
Various methods can be used to determine CO2 emissions
when converting chemical energy into electrical energy
(the correct physical formulation), colloquially referred to
as electricity generation.
The parallel market method assumes that the CO2 emis-
sions correspond precisely to the electricity generation
method used for this purpose. So, if I charge my BEV with
my private PV system on the roof of my house and the
OEM runs his production plant with wind power, the CO2
emissions are (close to) zero. If I charge my electric car
with green electricity, then likewise. So, I have created a
parallel market and am just moving into my own world.
Guess who calculates and argues in precisely this way?
The OEM. And so, of course, the world is okay for him and
the customer. But with this argumentation, some OEM also
produced carbon fibers for the car body at a hydroelectric
power plant. The car was, therefore, green. If the OEM had
produced aluminum at the hydroelectric plant, this material

19
Status electromobility 2023
would also have been CO2-neutral. As laudable as this
idea is, it is unfortunately wrong on closer inspection. It
needs to include how much energy is required for produc-
tion and operation. A heavy BEV SUV that consumes twice
the energy of a smaller BEV would then be just as green.
To illustrate the contradiction, I mentally divide an OEM
into two companies: one that produces the car and one that
produces the renewable energy. As laudable as the OEM's
commitment to producing renewable energy is, it is unfor-
tunately irrelevant to the car’s production. One could argue
that the CO2-free electricity could have been used for
something else, such as shutting down a coal-fired power
plant.
Therefore, the parallel market method is a one-sided view,
which, in my opinion, is rightly criticized by many.
The other extreme is the delta method. This assumes that
any additional energy consumption comes from the form
of energy conversion that has the highest CO2 emissions
at that exact moment - and in most electricity markets, that
is lignite. If someone charges their electric car, the grid
must provide this additional electricity at that exact mo-
ment. So, at that very moment, the most unfavorable
power plant could be shut down from a CO2 point of view
if the BEV was not charged. Thus, the delta method always
assumes the worst case for CO2 emissions. As a detailed
problem of this calculation, it should be mentioned that at
the moment of electricity generation, not every power plant
can be shut down immediately. In addition, the merit order
principle (the most expensive power plant determines the
total electricity price) has the effect that the most expen-
sive power plant at that moment is shut down. And that is
often the gas-fired power plants.
Environmental groups often use the delta method to calcu-
late all consumption as severely as possible. The method
fails if more than one BEV is considered because all lignite-
fired power plants would be shut down at some point, and
the hard coal-fired power plants would be counted next,
followed by the gas-fired power plants. (In reality, however,
the most flexible power plants, i.e., gas-fired power plants,

20
Status electromobility 2023
would be shut down first, which would change the consid-
eration again). So, it's an extreme consideration at the
other end.
The former president of the Ifo Institute, Prof. Sinn, took
the delta view to the extreme in an interview in the Mün-
chener Merkur and other media the other day. He argues
that when demand for oil falls, the price falls, which in-
creases demand worldwide and then leads back to the
same oil consumption as without BEVs.
In addition, he says it is necessary to produce the electric-
ity required for BEVs, which comes from lignite (delta
method). Thus, the BEV would even lead to an increase in
CO2 emissions. This is incorrect in the EU: The switch from
oil to electricity shifts the emissions from the uncapped (oil)
to the capped area (electricity). Thus, someone else has
to save the additional CO2 emissions from BEVs. This can
be done by CO2-lower electricity generation or other con-
sumers have to do without.
I would like to make another observation: The expansion
of fluctuating renewable energies can only succeed with
storage systems. In principle, the BEV is an ideal storage
device, even if bidirectional charging (i.e., feeding energy
back into the grid) is rarely used. The BEV could, therefore,
replace the necessary storage for stabilizing the grid,
which is necessary with the further expansion of renewable
energies. Thus, in the other extreme view, the production
of the battery from the BEV could be calculated.
As an engineer, however, I would not like to have to con-
sider the effects of technological progress that are to be
solved by politicians and economists. Otherwise, we will
soon no longer need to develop new technologies because
everything is useless anyway. In this book, I concentrate
on discussing how the sustainability of mobility can be im-
proved.
So, the key point is how you draw the system boundary
and how you balance.
For reasons of fairness, we scientists mainly use the mix
method, which takes into account the annual electricity mix

21
Status electromobility 2023
for CO2 emissions. Of course, one can draw the line arbi-
trarily and assume it for Germany, the EU, etc. In most
cases, it is taken country-specifically, but in the case of EU-
wide legislation, it lends itself to this area of consideration.
Of course, this method can be criticized as well. But I think
it is the fairest and clearest method. That is why our insti-
tute used the country- or region-specific mix method for all
considerations.
In addition, we consider a realistic scenario for CO2 emis-
sions in the medium term (2030), which assumes a 30%
reduction in CO2 emissions in the electricity mix in the EU,
and an optimistic scenario (i.e., closer to 2040), which as-
sumes that we are 95% CO2 -free in the electricity mix. For
eFuels, we assume import from sunny or windy areas.
BEVs purchased today will thus benefit from the improving
electricity mix over a typical lifetime of 15 years. eFuels
and hydrogen are also accounted for with similar techno-
logical progress.
Production and operation
The total emissions of a vehicle are summarized in a life
cycle analysis. The product is considered from the cradle
to the grave, i.e., production, operation, and recycling. The
current legislation in the EU is rightly criticized here, as it
only regulates the operation of cars. However, it does not
consider production from a CO2 perspective (or only indi-
rectly via CO2 emissions trading). This creates a potentially
significant error - especially if the vehicles only drive rela-
tively few kilometers. For the ICEV, production accounts
for only about 10% of total emissions; for the BEV, it can
account for 50 to 90% of total emissions, depending on op-
eration.
This confirms the often-heard opinion that it is better to
continue driving an old car than to buy a new one.
My wife has been saying for years that we should buy a
BEV since I talk about it so much. After some analysis and
discussion, we decided to eliminate one of our two cars
and keep the other (a Euro 6 diesel, by the way). We only
drive about 6000 km p.a. with a consumption of 5 l/100 km

22
Status electromobility 2023
due to regular use of public transport and bicycles. When
we drive, these are relatively long distances for which we
would need a BEV with a large battery. If we are honest, a
new BEV would have turned out to be an environmental
sin.
At this point, I can't resist a comment on another current
research project of our chair: racing cars that only drive a
few thousand kilometers are more ecologically damaging
when powered electrically. The production of the battery
never pays off over the short running distance. Calls for
such electrification are pure symbolic politics.
2.3 The golden rule for total CO2 emissions
I want to sensitize you to the fact that CO2 emissions
should not simply be assessed using the gCO2 /km value
legally stipulated today for new passenger cars.
This value must be multiplied by the number of kilometers
driven to represent the real CO2 emissions:
gCO2 /km * km
Furthermore, the driving profile and driving behavior play a
role. Using the vehicle in the city in traffic jams, on empty
country roads, or on highways significantly changes con-
sumption. The driver can increase consumption again with
a sporty and fast driving style.
gCO2 /km * km * driving profile
The production of the vehicle must, of course, be added to
this, resulting in the following:
gCO2 /km * km * driving profile + CO2 during production
This value must be multiplied by the number of all vehicles
(and the respective operation and production):
(gCO2 /km * km * driving profile + CO2 during production) *
Number of vehicles
Freight traffic: When we look at traffic, freight traffic
(trucks) cannot be ignored. This accounts for about a quar-
ter of fuel consumption in Germany. We do not yet have a
technical and economic (i.e., sustainably good) solution.

23
Status electromobility 2023
For higher ranges, hydrogen propulsion (almost regardless
of whether fuel cell or internal combustion engine) has the
advantage; up to about 400 km, the battery-electric solu-
tion is better. We discussed this in detail in our last book,
"Status Nutzfahrzeuge 2020".

24
Status electromobility 2023
3 Mobility rethought
I thought long and hard about what solutions I could pro-
pose here. Within the framework of the MCube cluster, we
have also intensively discussed solutions for metropolitan
regions. These considerations are also being taken into
account. To be honest, traffic will continue to be and re-
main environmentally damaging. We can reduce the dam-
age, but in my opinion, we are still miles away from CO2
neutrality from a technical point of view. We will certainly
not get to zero without CO2 compensation (keyword: plant-
ing trees). The storage of CO2 is another technical possi-
bility. I am skeptical of this idea because it involves much
energy to capture and inject the CO2. Moreover, unlike
trees, it has only disadvantages for the country in question,
such as costs, land use, and the risk of CO2 release.
When we look at the "kilometers driven" adjustment screw,
we are talking beyond the technical contribution to people's
behavior and their desire for mobility. To reduce this would
honestly mean doing without - but that would be the fastest
and cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions. However, we
have seen over the past year that mobility behavior has
hardly changed despite enormously high fuel prices. One
reason may be that mobility is still far too cheap for many
people, and another may be that the desire and necessity
are so great that many people prefer to do without other
things. Taking a global view, I have to note that the desire
for mobility - especially in developing countries - will remain.
As the world's population grows, this will lead to more mo-
bility and further increases in environmental pollution. I,
therefore, focus on the technical possibilities in the
knowledge that the bounce-back effect will cancel out
some of the technical progress.

25
Status electromobility 2023
3.1 Opportunities and market mechanisms to in-
crease sustainability
There are generally several ways to improve transportation
sustainability:
Innovations: Innovations represent the most elegant way
to maintain mobility without losing quality of life and (al-
most) without higher costs. Examples are the three-way
catalytic converter for the gasoline engine, which has mas-
sively reduced pollutant emissions. In my estimation, the
BEV will become another example of such innovations. In
power generation, photovoltaics has made such enormous
progress that it has already become the most ecological
and economical form (hydropower excluded because of its
lack of scalability). Wind power is another indispensable
component of future energy production. It is less subject to
fluctuations and covers the night hours and winter months
much better than PV. However, cost degression has not
been as rapid as for PV. As the use of PV and wind power
continues to rise, BEVs will become increasingly sustaina-
ble.
CO2 taxes: If the state levies taxes on CO2 emissions, the
idea is that CO2 emissions will fall. This is based on two
effects:
Substitution effect: Goods associated with many emissions
become more expensive relative to those produced with
less CO2, so the former is consumed.
Innovations: CO2 taxes stimulate innovation in technolo-
gies that are lower in CO2. However, these taxes do not
necessarily reduce emissions unless the price is set high
enough. If the taxes collected are reinvested in consump-
tion, CO2 emissions do not necessarily fall.
CO2 taxes are socially unjust because they impose a con-
sumption sacrifice on the less wealthy. The wealthy pay
these taxes and reduce their savings rate. The state would,
therefore, have to use part of the revenue from this system
for social compensation. However, this leads to higher
consumption, which somewhat reduces the savings.

26
Status electromobility 2023
Cap-and-trade: This idea aims to promote the efficient
use of fossil fuels where they generate the highest added
value. This system provides for a cap on CO2 emissions.
This budget is either distributed free of charge or is auc-
tioned to the highest bidders. In the EU, demanders must
bid unthinkingly for the allowances they want. The auction
is conducted according to the unit price method, in which
all successful bidders pay the same price. This corre-
sponds to the lowest bid that can just be met with all certif-
icates.
After that, the budget is tradable (trade). This leads to se-
cure compliance with the cap. Socially, the system is unfair
because the price of mobility rises, which means that the
rich can continue to afford the emissions, and the poorer
classes have to do without mobility in return. The state
would have to compensate for this through higher subsi-
dies for poorer sections of the population, e.g., through a
capitation fee. The revenues from the auction could be
used for this purpose in a budget-neutral way.
Since its introduction, CO2 emissions trading has been
used successfully in power generation in the EU and has
led to the legally intended and thus prescribed reduction.
The disadvantage is the increase in energy costs and, thus,
the risk of energy-intensive industries moving abroad.
Therefore, if such systems are not used worldwide, they
lead to an economic disadvantage for the respective re-
gion. The EU is consequently considering imposing a CO2
tax on imported CO2, e.g., energy-intensive products such
as cement, steel, and aluminum, at a level equivalent to
the price of CO2 emissions in the EU, provided that the im-
ported products are not already subject to a CO2 price in
the countries of origin.
This cap-and-trade system in the power sector and en-
ergy-intensive industries currently covers just under half of
CO2 emissions in the EU and would need to be extended
to all sectors (household, transport) to be more effective,
thus removing system boundaries.
Maximum CO2 budget for everyone: The idea is that
everyone would receive a personal CO2 budget. No one

27
Status electromobility 2023
would then be able to emit more. This could be imple-
mented by recording the CO2 emissions of all fuels and
energy sources in parallel and recording the emissions
during production. This procedure would lead to people
switching more to public transport, forming carpools, and
driving smaller, more economical cars, while their desire
for mobility would remain the same. The wealthy (many in
Germany) would rebel because air travel and long vacation
trips with their own cars would quickly become impossible.
De facto, this principle is tantamount to expropriation in the
sense of limited consumption possibilities. It would also
lead to a massive disadvantage for rural residents depend-
ent on the car and longer journeys. The disadvantages of
this idea could be mitigated if one's unused budget could
be traded. Frugal and poorer people could thus earn an
additional income.
CO2 emissions would have to be recorded across all con-
sumer goods and services to implement this. I consider
this approach to be economically inefficient, extremely
time-consuming from an organizational point of view, and
therefore not feasible or effective.
Summary: So, what can be implemented and, therefore
really help? In my opinion, clever innovations are promoted
through subsidies and punishment until they pay for them-
selves in the long term (in all dimensions). Imposing renun-
ciation on people will not work in the long run, even if this
would be the cheapest and fastest way. To prevent the
bounce-back effect, the EU's parallel cap-and-trade sys-
tem must be extended to all sectors. This must be made
socially fair, e.g., by reimbursing a capitation fee for basic
services.
Of course, one can ask why two systems are actually
needed. The cap-and-trade system would, by definition,
achieve the result on its own. However, it is still necessary
to promote innovations because they take time and must
be researched, developed, and promoted much earlier. If
the number of certificates is lowered and the innovations
are not available in time, the price for CO2 shoots up. The
only solution then is a corresponding reduction in con-
sumption and, thus, great resentment on the part of the

28
Status electromobility 2023
population. Therefore, innovations for CO2 avoidance must
be initiated several years before the reduction of certifi-
cates takes place.
3.2 Promote and punish
In principle, it is possible to promote behavior or products,
i.e., to make them cheaper with subsidies to encourage
their use. This is, for example, Germanies 49€ ticket or the
expansion of public transport. Of course, this costs tax
money. Or the state can make something more expensive,
i.e., levy taxes on it (punish), such as on gasoline and die-
sel.
However, the effect of subsidies is psychologically weaker
than punishments because people feel more suffering
when they lose than joy when they gain the same. In an
American hospital, there was implemented a free public
transportation ticket. Few took advantage of it but the ma-
jority continued to drive to work. It was only when parking
fees were charged at the hospital that employees increas-
ingly switched to public transport. It makes sense, if only
because of the limited financial capacity of the state, to
combine both principles in such a way that the result is
cost-neutral.
I still advocate leaving the technical solution open in prin-
ciple. The market will regulate this. And it will do so via the
true price, which internalizes the external costs via CO2
taxes or certificates to be purchased. And then it will be-
come apparent quickly whether insulating the house and
installing a heat pump, combined with the electricity costs
and internalizing external costs, is cheaper (and thus more
sustainable) than an uninsulated house with pellet heating.
The same is true for the electric car compared to internal
combustion engines. A motor home with a few thousand
kilometers of mileage per year will still be better off having
an internal combustion engine than an electric drive from
a sustainability point of view.

29
Status electromobility 2023
3.3 How do we specifically reduce CO2 emissions
from transport?
The market mechanisms described above must be based
on a clever technological and organizational foundation. I
would now like to illuminate this with proposals.
So, according to the golden rule and the electricity mix
method, in principle, the following measures help:
gCO2 /km: BEVs are the most cost-effective form of drive
for higher annual mileages to reduce CO2 emissions, pro-
vided that the electricity mix has low CO2 emissions. This
means that BEVs are the chosen drivetrain for reducing
CO2 emissions for policymakers and OEMs.
In addition, the specific consumption of each car (in gCO2
/km) must decrease. Realistically, this can only be
achieved with smaller vehicles, namely BEVs. To this end,
we at TUM presented the MUTE vehicle concept at the IAA
12 years ago. It is shown on the cover page below. It is a
two-seater BEV with limited driving performance, so it has
an acceleration from 0 - 100 km/h of 12 s and a top speed
of 120 km/h. The range would be over 200 km in real terms
with today's technology. The vehicle would, therefore, be
a classic second car, which can also be used well as a
commuter vehicle. Of course, the household would still
need a "real" car for more transport volume and range.
However, MUTE requires only about half the energy to
build and operate as a full-fledged vehicle today, e.g., an
ID.3 from Volkswagen.
I know the limited utility of small and preferably flat vehicles.
With the aging population, entry and exit ergonomics are
becoming more important. This group needs a high seating
position and, consequently, a high entrance. This inevita-
bly leads to high vehicles with correspondingly poorer aer-
odynamics. The trend toward SUVs can be explained by
this aspect: High vehicles require more vehicle width and
large wheels, which mean greater ground clearance, to
achieve a respectable design proportion. In sum, this re-
sults in an SUV design.
The current legislation defining BEVs as having 0 gCO2
/km could be dropped if transport is included in emissions

30
Status electromobility 2023
trading. If this is not enforceable, BEV consumption would
have to be multiplied by the projected CO2 emissions over
the lifetime of the BEV in the EU electricity mix. In turn, the
CO2 value for the fleet mix would have to be raised accord-
ingly. This would result in smaller BEVs having to be sold
rather than the current large ones.
Km performance: The total kilometers driven must de-
crease. The easiest way to do this would be to increase
costs, leading to abandonment. However, price elasticity is
low, as can be seen time and again with rising fuel prices:
Consumption goes down only a little because many people
have to drive or want to drive, no matter what it costs. Sub-
sidies, such as the commuter allowance, should be elimi-
nated because they need to create the right incentives.
The financial disadvantages for sparsely populated states
where people have to take long trips must be compensated
for in other ways by politicians.
In general, the issue can only be solved with new ap-
proaches to mobility. Of course, occupying the car with
more than today's average of 1.3 people can help here.
This can be solved with more carpools such as BlaBlaCar
or commuter pools. Switching commuters to public trans-
portation through incentives such as the €49 ticket also
helps.
It is more challenging to redesign residential and work sites
to reduce traffic. This would require major structural inter-
ventions. Nor will it be possible to change urban design in
a few years. Giving up leisure mobility is seemingly effort-
less because it is a luxury not essential to life. But who
really wants to do without visiting friends and relatives?
Driving profile: The biggest lever limits the maximum
speed, i.e., 130 km/h on highways. I will discuss this point
again in detail later.
CO2 in production: As explained above, the electricity mix
for production has a powerful impact here if the vehicle’s
mileage is low or the operation is primarily based on re-
newable energies. After that, at the same time, the only
lever is to reduce the car’s mass and thus the use of re-
sources and energy. This can be achieved on the one hand

31
Status electromobility 2023
by smaller vehicles and, on the other hand, by lightweight
materials. With these, whether plastic, aluminum, or car-
bon fiber, it is often just a swap of operating emissions for
production emissions in the case of passenger cars, i.e., a
zero-sum game.
Number of cars: Every car sold increases CO2 emissions
because it is produced and operates for about 20 years.
So, we would have to reduce the number. Car sharing and
other mobility services that bring more people into one
transport container can help here.
Mathematically, of course, this is all elementary analysis,
but the question is how this can be achieved sustainably.
3.4 Future mobility in rural areas
In the countryside, the need for mobility remains high. In
addition, new forms of work are making the countryside at-
tractive again, and families are happy to move out of the
city again. However, this creates an increased need for
commuting. I see few ways to reduce the number of miles
driven. Carpooling makes sense for commuting but is often
impossible for private trips because the times and places
are too far apart.
All cars will undoubtedly be successively powered electri-
cally over the next few decades. This is easy to do in the
countryside because private parking spaces are available
there that can be well equipped with charging stations - fed
from PV systems. The BEV would have to be as small a
sustainable vehicle as possible, analogous to our MUTE.
In addition, households in the countryside can also park a
second car quite well, which could still be an ICE for a more
extended period but is only used for rare long-distance
trips. Of course, it would be more desirable if a long-dis-
tance vehicle could be rented at central locations in the
countryside for the corresponding application, thus elimi-
nating the need for a second car of one's own. Whether
and when this will become economical, I cannot foresee.
For people who cannot drive themselves, such as older
people and children, public transport is not a satisfactory

32
Status electromobility 2023
solution in rural areas. High frequency and good network
coverage would lead to many unoccupied and empty trips,
which is expensive and unsustainable. In addition, these
groups of people often need assistance. Solutions would
be to move to the city, which is often not socially practical
or reasonable, or to cab services. As in Singapore, cabs
would have to be more consistently integrated into the pub-
lic transport system and cover off-peak routes or times.
Call cabs are a sensible intermediate step, but they seem
antiquated to me in the age of digitalization. Automated
cabs (also known as robotaxi) will not become established
in rural areas until well after they have been deployed in
the city. For one thing, the driving situations on rural roads
are more dangerous than in the city, partly due to the
higher speeds, and a necessary infrastructure such as 5G
networks may be lacking. For another, the groups above
of people will be unable to use the robotaxis due to a lack
of necessary assistance and supervision. Nevertheless, a
robotaxi may have its justification, especially in small cities,
because there is hardly any public transport available. Cur-
rent technical examples still drive at low speeds or operate
with safety drivers, but they already offer a benefit.
Conclusion: The car will continue to be the least harmful
means of transport in rural areas for many decades to
come, and is therefore part of the solution.
3.5 Future mobility in the city
In the city, on the other hand, the car is more of a problem:
It consumes scarce space which could be used for friend-
lier applications. It causes noise and traffic jams and en-
dangers weaker road users like cyclists and pedestrians.
Here, cities and policymakers would have to make an effort
to enable city dwellers to do without cars while maintaining
the same quality of mobility.
My vision is that the standard for city dwellers should first
be the mandatory annual public transport ticket. The most
important step has already been taken with the introduc-
tion of the German €49 ticket. This will primarily benefit city
dwellers and commuters from the surrounding areas.

33
Status electromobility 2023
Public transport should be supplemented by more individ-
ualized options at off-peak times or in districts further away
from the city center. It is imperative that cabs also be inte-
grated into the public transport system in terms of tariffs.
In addition, they should take over trips during off-peak
times and in remote areas. The cabs are then more heavily
utilized and thus also cheaper to operate. In Singapore, for
example, they cost only about a third of Munich. In Singa-
pore, the subways are switched off from midnight at the
latest, and everyone then takes cabs. Many Singaporeans
can do without their cars completely because of the low-
cost cabs. In Singapore, there are 5 million inhabitants and
1 million cars. In Munich, we have 1.5 million inhabitants
and 700,000 cars. Public transportation in Munich is simi-
larly well developed as in Singapore. Halving the number
of private cars in Munich therefore seems to me to be en-
tirely possible in terms of traffic.
If cabs are shared, which would be easy to organize now-
adays thanks to digitization, up to 40% of trips can be elim-
inated. Moia is already demonstrating in Hamburg with VW
buses that shared cabs are possible and make sense, alt-
hough the shuttles there have a reputation as party buses.
The costs drop accordingly.
Another option for reducing costs is the robotaxi. Unfortu-
nately, these systems are currently still very expensive and
technically not mature, so this option is not yet economical.
In addition, many are reluctant to use robotaxis. In surveys,
many parents said they would never let their children drive
them. Nevertheless, the robotaxi will certainly become an
option in the next decade. Unfortunately, I have to say that
cabs generate more traffic than private cars because they
usually have to be driven to the pickup destination empty.
The next step for individual trips, shopping trips, and the
weekend trip to the mountains should be car sharing. Now,
you will object that this has been around for years but still
hasn't caught on. What are the reasons?
The supply is low, especially in the outer neighborhoods,
and requires longer walking times. The network effect is
needed here: the more people use the system, the more
attractive it becomes. Promotion and penalties would be

34
Status electromobility 2023
necessary here to expand car sharing more and thus make
it more available and cheaper.
1. When it comes to promotion, I can think of little be-
yond the current level, such as free parking. In ad-
dition, the number of parking spaces required for
new buildings is reduced if car sharing is offered in
the neighborhood so construction costs are reduced,
and parking space is eliminated.
2. Penalties could, of course, be imposed via signifi-
cantly higher parking fees and more expensive res-
ident parking for private vehicles. Fortunately, the
nationally prescribed cap of a ridiculous 30€/a for
residents' parking was abolished in 2020 in Ger-
many. However, the parking fees are still too low for
the necessary effect. If you multiply the 10 m² of
parking space required for one car by a very low
Munich rent of 10€/m2, you end up with 1200€/a,
roughly the cost of a garage parking space. To
shorten many discussions, as a city, I would man-
age the current parking space. Whoever pays the
most gets the space. That could be parking spaces
for cars or garages for cargo bikes, pub gardens or
gardens for residents. If it's worth it to the city, it can
forgo revenue and use it for bike lanes. The market
will then regulate this. It would be provocative if all
bike owners signed up for resident parking and
parked their bikes in car parking spaces. This would
demonstrate the paradox of today's regulation. Un-
fortunately, this idea would be difficult to cushion in
a socially just way.
3. Many users do not like public free-floating car-shar-
ing because the cars are sometimes in poor or dirty
condition. Furthermore, there is no personal rela-
tionship to the car. This is where more privatized
(station-based) car sharing, in which smaller com-
munities access a limited pool of vehicles, can help.
We are currently trying this out in Munich with the
MCube-ComfficientShare project and gaining expe-
rience with it. According to a study by Kolleck, one

35
Status electromobility 2023
such car replaced nine private vehicles. Free-float-
ing car sharing, on the other hand, shows no benefit
in this aspect.
The parking space freed up can be used for active mobility,
parking cargo bikes, or simply for leisure and recreation.
For safety reasons, it would also be desirable to have sep-
arate infrastructure for bicycles, pedestrians, cars, and
public transport in each case, with appropriate priority for
the weaker transport vehicles or those carrying several
people.
However, I advocate creating the offers first and then ap-
plying penalties. The other order is not socially acceptable.
These offers are advance payments by the cities that still
need to be financed from fee income from fines that follow
later.
All remaining cars in the city will be successively converted
to BEVs. This makes sense in the city simply because of
noise and local emissions. The charging problem for lan-
tern parkers will be reduced by fast-charging options,
charging stations in public spaces, and longer ranges.
Especially in the city, it is worthwhile to look at the total
costs of the different modes of transport in terms of sus-
tainability. Daniel Schröder has studied this in great detail
at our chair. He comes to the conclusion that if all costs are
taken into account, i.e., environmental costs, accidents,
health effects, and use of infrastructure, i.e., the internali-
zation of all external costs, walking would be the most cost-
effective for society. The most expensive way to get
around is with electric scooters because they are often in-
volved in accidents, driving up costs. Pricing the true costs
would be the task of politics here.
In large urban areas, there will be more than one solution.
There will be a multitude of offerings that must be well-or-
chestrated and networked. However, the core issue that
has to be seriously discussed is the distribution of space in
the city. And here, the car is more the problem than the
solution. The number of cars in the city has to be signifi-
cantly reduced to develop a feasible solution for better and
more sustainable mobility.

36
Status electromobility 2023
3.6 Future mobility for commuters
Many commuters live on the outskirts of cities or the coun-
tryside and own a car anyway. This will soon be predomi-
nantly a BEV. And if it is then charged with its own PV sys-
tem for a few cents per kilowatt hour, the costs are hardly
an argument for switching to public transport - even with a
49€ ticket. The comfort of getting to work dry-footed and
without changing trains will outweigh a few minutes of time
savings (if any!) when switching to public transport at
Park&Ride stations. If everyone optimizes his own com-
mute, urban noise and traffic congestion will not be solved,
and no room will be made for active mobility. In addition,
commuters will have to put up with longer travel times as
traffic increases. The solution with a city toll is effective, as
practiced in London or Singapore. In Singapore, for exam-
ple, the toll increases until the desired average speed is
reached on the roads. This is also controlled by time of day.
The traffic in Singapore is, therefore, constantly flowing.
Penalties such as city tolls, increased parking fees in cities,
or special lanes for vehicles carrying at least three people
on gateway roads can encourage a shift to P&R options or
carpooling.
But this is not socially fair because then only those who
can afford it at the current prices will drive. A more socially
elegant solution than the toll are the Mobility Coins pro-
posed by my colleague Bogenberger, Chair of Traffic En-
gineering at the Technical University of Munich. Each res-
ident of the city and surrounding areas receives a specific
mobility budget (Mobility Coins). Walking and cycling in-
crease this, public transport is relatively cheap and driving
a car consumes a lot of coins. This allows everyone to
drive into the city for a certain number of days. Those who
carpool can drive more often; single drivers are limited.
The budget could be traded. The implementation is cer-
tainly not trivial, but the idea has potential.
An idea from my time in Portugal in the late 1990s could
also help reduce commuter flows. There, the large compa-
nies were obliged by the state to bring their employees to
work. This was because few Portuguese owned a car at
the time, and public transportation to the surrounding

37
Status electromobility 2023
countryside was weak. A private bus system was quickly
organized to collect all employees. Companies would
promptly join forces to establish their own bus system.
They know exactly where the employees live and when
they work. The rest is quickly solved with today's opera-
tional research methods and appropriate computing power.
If more mobility data were available and the companies co-
operated with the cities, this idea could be integrated into
the public transportation system.
3.7 Speed limit vs. own wallet
This topic is particularly polarizing in Germany. We are
fighting as hard as the Americans over the ownership of
weapons. All the arguments are on the table and have
been exchanged. Politicians have not agreed on a solution
for years – in fact this led to no speed limit. I would now
like to first objectively illuminate the arguments and finally
make a much more far-reaching and, in my view, more ef-
fective proposal.
The immediate fuel savings speak in favor of the speed
limit because fuel consumption increases quadratically
with speed and thus drops significantly at only slightly
lower speeds on the highway. In addition, with limited top
speeds, OEMs can design vehicles with more minor, and
therefore more efficient, powertrains and brakes. Tires be-
come lighter and cheaper because they don't need to be
reinforced for the high centrifugal forces. So do other com-
ponents.
The argument against this is that German manufacturers
could now do without good aerodynamics, making the ve-
hicles more inefficient in all driving situations.
The longer travel time is of course a disadvantage, how-
ever, because of this some will consider switching to the
train, which is ecologically advantageous.
BEVs are driven slowly because otherwise, the highway
range drops too much. You can see Tesla cars in the slip-
stream of trucks repeatedly, so they can still reach their
destination without charging. The speed limit reduces this

38
Status electromobility 2023
disadvantage of the BEV compared to the ICEV and accel-
erates the switch to the new form of powertrain.
Accidents with high differential speeds are declining. How-
ever, German cars are considered to be particularly safe
in terms of driving dynamics and in crashes, which could
be lost through a speed limit. However, the comparison of
highway accidents in countries with and without a speed
limit shows hardly any difference. I don't know any analysis
about the reasons, but a speed limit can lead to inattention
or falling asleep.
OEMs always like to point to the loss of image worldwide
and the resulting drop in sales figures caused by a speed
limit, and driving fast is simply fun for many people. Propo-
nents of the speed limit, on the other hand, argue that it is
a sign of climate protection, while others see it as symbolic
politics and ideology.
What bothers me about this discussion is firstly that it has
not produced any results for decades and secondly that it
only addresses the one (small) aspect of CO2 emissions,
namely the driving profile, but does not look at the overall
picture. From my experience as a former company car user,
a relatively simple measure to introduce would have a
much greater impact. I already mentioned that in Germany,
2/3 of all new vehicles are registered commercially as a
company, leased, or fleet vehicle. So, you have to attack
where the purchase decision is made. The solution is quite
simple:
Everyone (!) must personally pay for the refueling and/or
charging of their used vehicle.
The company can pay the employee a flat rate for fuel per
month but not per kilometer (!) if the vehicle is used for
business purposes. But not the fuel or electricity, as is
common today via what I call flat-rate driving. I used to
have a company car myself and know the behavior of for-
mer colleagues and sometimes also of myself: If the em-
ployer pays for the fuel, people drive more, order a bigger
car, and also like to drive fast - as long as they don't have
to refuel at their own expense. Psychology plays a role
here again: The payment by the employer at the beginning

39
Status electromobility 2023
of the month is tacitly taken as profit. The car user now has
to refuel the car at his own expense and is annoyed every
time he refuels because the loss is received twice as heavy
as the profit.
The effect would be effective at all levels:
gCO2 /km: Employees would already pay much more at-
tention to fuel consumption when selecting their company
car than they do today. Smaller and more efficient vehicles
would thus be purchased.
km: Everyone would rather consider whether they really
have to travel so much on business and in private, and in
some cases perhaps switch to the train or even forego trips.
Driving profile: I know few people who would glide down
the highway in a large SUV at over 200 km/h if they had to
pay for the 25 l/100 km consumption themselves.
With plug-in hybrids, drivers would certainly make more
use of the charging option. Nowadays, this is financially
unattractive for many because the company pays for the
fuel but not for private charging, so often these vehicles
are not charged and thus only used as ICEVs.
CO2 through production: Since small cars consume cor-
respondingly less, many may choose a car one size
smaller after all.
Number of vehicles: With the real costs that are now sud-
denly felt more strongly, some would perhaps do without
the (second) car altogether and take advantage of a mo-
bility flat rate.
The effect of new vehicles is amplified in the fleet because
commercial vehicles are often only driven for a few years
by the first owner. At Volkswagen, I used to get a new com-
pany car every six months. After that, however, the vehi-
cles are in private hands for 15 - 20 years, so commercial
vehicles, in particular, determine the entire fleet stock in
the country.
However, we may still need a speed limit: If we want to
have trucks (or even cars) drive automatically on the high-

40
Status electromobility 2023
way, vehicles with high differential speeds may be de-
tected too late. This makes automation difficult or even im-
possible.
3.8 Future mobility for goods
In our book "Status Nutzfahrzeuge 2020," we showed that
CO2 reduction in freight transport is primarily managed by
transporting standard semitrailer trucks. These travel long
distances and account for a large proportion of freight
transport emissions. So, these should be addressed first.
To do this, one can choose the hydrogen route, which is
the most cost-effective solution for long distances over
about 500 km without charging. Up to 400 km, the BEV
performs better in terms of cost. Both solutions reduce
greenhouse gases similarly well with the appropriate elec-
tricity mix. Unfortunately, the overall environmental impact
is still not much lower with current technology than with to-
day's diesel trucks. Nevertheless, I assume that truck traf-
fic in the EU will be converted to BEVs. In principle, this is
possible because a dense electrical network for charging
exists here. This is not the case in the USA, so hydrogen
may be more suitable there if at all politically feasible.
In the EU, the expansion targets for renewable energies
lead to a massive expansion of photovoltaics. This only
produces energy during the day, with a peak around mid-
day. However, this is when most trucks are on the road,
and if all truck drivers wanted to charge at midday, the re-
quired number of charging stations would be uneconomi-
cal.
My suggestion is to turn it around: Trucks charge during
the day and drive at night. That would stabilize the electri-
cal grid during the day. In addition, it would relieve traffic
on the highways during the day. But that would only work
if the trucks were automated at night. This should be tech-
nically possible in the next decade. Trucks could then drive
somewhat slower and thus be more energy-efficient, safer,
and quieter on the road. This is possible if the differential
speeds to other traffic are low, i.e., with a nighttime speed
limit for passenger cars on these routes. The idea then is
to have a hub-to-hub system (I like to call it a stagecoach

41
Status electromobility 2023
system), with a hub built for trucks every 50 km or so. Bat-
tery-electric semitrailer trucks can change tractor vehicles
there, giving them a basically unlimited range. In the morn-
ing, truck drivers arrive at the hub and manually drive the
trailers to the cities. The trucks can then be recharged or
used as storage during the day. The driving task is simpli-
fied by driving exclusively on the highway with clearly de-
fined on and off-ramps and simple driving tasks. If the high-
way is additionally monitored with cameras on these sec-
tions for e.g., accidents, this automation task can be solved
quite well.
Infrastructure, i.e., hubs and securing routes, etc., could be
privately invested. Trucks could then be operated by
freight forwarders. Trucks with the appropriate level of au-
tomation would be able to provide OEM.
Certainly, this would be potential competition for rail
transport and would make it less attractive. However, if the
focus is on sustainability, corresponding goods will con-
tinue to be transported by rail. In addition, the electrically
powered truck would possibly be more sustainable than
rail transport. Correctly calculated costs would reflect this.
3.9 Why ideas are not implemented in Germany
I hear again and again from my transport colleagues, both
at the TU Munich and at other universities, that it is per-
fectly clear how the traffic problems in cities are to be
solved. More public transport is needed, cycling and walk-
ing must be promoted, and parking spaces must become
more expensive. The car is more of a problem than a so-
lution for mobility. This is what is being discussed and im-
plemented in many cities around the world. Examples are
Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Barcelona, in Germany per-
haps Münster. In Germany, on the other hand, there are
congested cities like Munich and Stuttgart. Do you notice
the difference between these cities?
In the latter, certain companies contribute not insignifi-
cantly to the cities' trade tax revenues. I leave the rest of
the interpretation to you.

42
Status electromobility 2023
Well, now the cat is out of the bag. I have experienced it
myself, how these companies did not even have to say an-
ything or threaten. The cities or even federal states are well
aware of this fact and act accordingly. I sometimes get the
impression that as soon as someone threatens to get rid
of a car in the city, the OEM fears that the first stone of a
domino will fall, and then no one will buy cars anymore. I
firmly believe in the utility and importance of the car and
think this worry is unfounded. Rather, the German automo-
tive industry does not appear credible worldwide and can-
not present itself as an expert on mobility problems (which
is exactly what cities are looking for!) if we cannot even
solve the problems on our own doorstep.
I therefore urgently appeal to those responsible for the au-
tomotive industry to work with them to solve the mobility
problems in cities. We are trying to support precisely this
approach with our joint project MCube. So, I hereby invite
all interested parties to participate in the next phase of this
project.
Let me conclude, however, by citing as a positive example
the activities of Volkswagen subsidiary Moia, which oper-
ates shared shuttles in Hamburg and plans to automate
some of them by 2030. Then, as part of public transport, a
shared system that is largely flexible but still reasonably
cost-effective could replace the cab. I would also like to
pay tribute to the car-sharing systems established by BMW
and Mercedes in numerous major cities.
These examples could certainly be continued with good
projects. I hope that more OEMs will follow this path and
promote mobility innovations.

43
Status electromobility 2023
4 Consequences and necessary
measures
I would now like to shed light on which interest groups
would have to act in a timely manner and in what form in
order to make mobility sustainable, i.e., ecologically, eco-
nomically, and socially. CO2 emissions are certainly an im-
portant aspect, but from a sustainability perspective, they
are not the only ones.
All stakeholders must understand that sustainability must
be the goal. This term is much broader than environmental
protection or climate protection. It means finding a bal-
anced compromise between ecology in all aspects, includ-
ing economic, and social issues. And that can also mean
that we cannot currently implement something at the pace
that seems necessary for one partial aspect, such as just
the climate.
Sustainability will only be achieved through joint action by
larger entities, such as the EU, USA, China, Japan or other
larger regions. Local solutions will not work because this
will lead to compartmentalization, relocation effects, or
massive economic disadvantage of the respective region.
4.1 Politics
Politics must make the start and set the right ecological
and social framework conditions. I believe in the power of
the market to implement these framework conditions eco-
nomically. What do these framework conditions look like,
in my estimation?
1. Every gram of CO2 or any other environmental im-
pact is worth the same, regardless of who emits it.

44
Status electromobility 2023
Production and operation are treated equally. Thus,
every gram must be priced the same.
2. What is actually needed is a globally uniform ap-
proach to reducing CO2. Since I do not expect this
to be possible in the short term, I advocate that the
EU takes a pioneering role. Other trade alliances
could then follow suit. Emerging countries with CO2-
intensive power generation or production could be
given relief at the outset.
3. Cap-and-trade systems are, by definition, the most
effective. The EU would have to include all sectors,
including transport, in today's system. The initial is-
sue price for the allowances results from today's
bidding process. The budget (cap) decreases annu-
ally to the desired target.
4. The imported CO2, caused by energy-intensive raw
materials such as steel, aluminum, cement, or
transport power, would also have to acquire certifi-
cates.
5. In order to make the system socially fair, each citi-
zen could be reimbursed the current issue price for
the certificates for a minimum CO2 budget for a sim-
ple lifestyle (e. g. currently 5 tons of CO2 p.a.). This
would only place a heavier burden on the rich, who
emit more CO2 due to higher consumption. The CO2
budget reimbursed per capita would be lowered as
technology advances.
From then on, the market would regulate everything. The
cap would lower CO2 emissions, and the price of CO2
would go up. People would either consume less or invest
in renewable energies to achieve higher consumption
again.
The market would automatically weed out the least sus-
tainable technologies. First, coal-fired power plants would
be shut down, then crude oil consumption would be re-
duced, and finally, gas consumption would be cut back.
Should CO2 certificates become scarce and thus too ex-
pensive, politicians would have to intervene and reduce
the pace of reduction. In this way, acceptance could be
achieved among the population.

45
Status electromobility 2023
We wouldn't be having a discussion about whether oil, gas
heating, or heat pumps are better. Likewise, we could save
ourselves the argument about combustion engines, eFuels,
BEVs, and hydrogen. The market would decide on the
price. In my opinion, in the mobility sector as well as in the
household sector (heat, light, etc.), all the technologies that
are necessary are so far developed and in large-scale pro-
duction that a subsidy is no longer necessary. Heat pumps
have been around for decades; electric cars are scaled.
PV modules are available in mass quantities, and wind tur-
bines are produced in large quantities. eFuels will be pro-
duced when renewables are sufficiently cheap or the CO2
price rises sharply, as will hydrogen.
If the economic outlook is good enough, the state may still
have to support the infrastructure to solve the chicken-and-
egg problem. For example, the expansion of the charging
infrastructure for BEVs, the expansion of the power grid for
the transport of renewable energies, and an infrastructure
for the transport of hydrogen, especially for the steel and
chemical industry, are the joint responsibility of the state.
Traffic jams also contribute to environmental pollution, of
course, but above all, to time loss. Here, my vision is that
every car has to book a time slot for driving. This is free of
charge at off-peak times and on routes with little traffic,
while the price is increased during rush hour on commuter
routes or at vacation times on highways until the traffic
flows just fine. Singapore implements this in exactly the
same way via a toll system. Social cushioning could be
provided by issuing a minimum number of slots free of
charge to give everyone a minimum level of mobility. Be-
yond that, everyone has to buy additional slots. This will be
necessary anyway when more BEVs are on the roads.
Without having booked a charging station beforehand for
a stopover that may be required, there is actually no need
to set off for a long journey at peak times.
4.2 OEM
OEMs must prepare for a shift to BEVs only. This includes
the development of dedicated electric car platforms to take
advantage of all the benefits (package, cost, functional

46
Status electromobility 2023
benefits). They also need to build their own battery facto-
ries and jointly establish a non-discriminatory charging in-
frastructure network that can be used by all vehicles. To-
day, BMW can't fill up only at Aral, and Ford can't fill up
only at Shell.
The OEMs should build smaller vehicles. The current trend
toward ever-larger SUVs is not sustainable at all, not even
as BEVs. Resource consumption and energy requirements
are far too high. In addition, the OEMs must pay much
more attention to ensuring that BEV production is as en-
ergy-intensive as possible. The OEM must consistently
separate its business into the production of cars and the
provision of renewable energy. In the future, politicians will
not allow the two, which are independent of each other for
the time being, to be mixed. Critics will increasingly deni-
grate this approach as greenwashing and will also prevail
with this view in the medium term - regardless of which
system boundary the OEM tries to draw. For motivation,
the OEM could receive a partial credit of the CO2 saved by
its own company, e.g., 10%, in order to build larger vehi-
cles with it. In this way, OEMs could be motivated to invest
more in renewable energies or storage systems, which
they can produce themselves at marginal cost.
OEMs must prepare themselves for declining unit sales of
passenger cars. To compensate for the resulting drop in
sales, OEMs can develop business areas as mobility pro-
viders. Car sharing in small communities would be one op-
tion for this. So would the operation of cab fleets that are
integrated into the public transport system. A huge poten-
tial business area is autonomous driving, especially for
trucks and city buses. The systems and especially the sys-
tem integration, because this intervenes in the core of the
vehicle, must be done by the OEMs. The necessary infra-
structure, such as cameras to monitor the traffic area or
the transmission of traffic light signals, could be taken over
by the state or even a private investor as specified by the
OEM. The latter would then have to assume liability for this
area.

47
Status electromobility 2023
4.3 Suppliers
The suppliers have the most difficult task. The OEMs are
slow to show the way, and the suppliers then have to follow
in a hurry. Many of today's suppliers cannot switch to the
new necessary components due to their production ma-
chines and know-how. Someone who manufactures a pis-
ton today will not be able to simply produce power elec-
tronics tomorrow. This is, unfortunately, the case with a
large part of today's value creation of internal combustion
engine drives.
For suppliers of the new components, scaling up, i.e.,
building new production capacity, is particularly capital-in-
tensive. They will only dare to do this with purchase order
guarantees. This requires a high level of reliability and
long-term planning capability on the part of policymakers.
4.4 Customers
By customers, I mean many fleet managers, companies,
car rental companies, car-sharing providers, and, in Ger-
many, only to a small extent, the private population. By
customers, however, I mean not only car buyers but also
users of mobility in general. In my vision, many will no
longer own a car in the future.
Customers need to adapt to smaller vehicles and choose
the minimum vehicle required for each driving purpose.
SUVs for everyone at all times is simply not a sustainable
path - regardless of the powertrain!
Mobility, especially in cities, must be understood as some-
thing flexible that includes all mobility options. Sufficient
and suitable mobility offers, combined with good mobility
management that allocates as many passengers as possi-
ble to one mobility vessel, will solve our mobility problems
- in cities, there is less CO2, but much more congestion,
noise, and exhaust fumes.

48
Status electromobility 2023
5 Who will succeed?
I will base my assessment on the assumption that govern-
ments around the world choose to make mobility truly sus-
tainable and change it because of that. This includes the
expansion of public transport in cities with a high share of
car sharing, public shared cabs, and more space for active
mobility like bicycles and walking. Particularly in rural ar-
eas, electromobility with small, low-cost BEVs will take
hold. In the long term, all cars and trucks will be largely
converted to BEVs. Manufacturers that also offer commer-
cial vehicles, such as Daimler and MAN, must also achieve
this step. In the truck sector, hydrogen could still be an op-
tion. The costs will decide that.
Using the sustainability criteria of ecology, economy, and
social issues, I essentially evaluate the currently largest
OEMs but also smaller ones with volume potential.
For OEMs, I base my assessment of sustainability on the
following three criteria:
1. Economy: Will the company manage the complete
switch to cost-effective electromobility by 2035?
I see the BEV as the only way to significantly reduce
environmental impact. Many regions will follow this
path. Economies of scale will make these vehicles
cheaper and cheaper and, at total costs, quite soon
cheaper than combustion engines. China and the EU
have virtually decided to switch to the electric car. The
EU calls it only an extensive ban on the combustion en-
gine but means de facto a switch to the BEV. In China,
the trend is going in the same direction. The USA will
follow much later. They have the additional problem
that many vehicles are very large, and a switch to small
vehicles is difficult to implement.

49
Status electromobility 2023
2. Ecology: Does the company offer efficient vehicles
in mass production?
Only efficient, i.e., small and aerodynamic, vehicles can
really reduce environmental pollution. Large vehicles
should only be an option for sharing. There, only a few
of these large vehicles can cover the entire demand.
3. Social: Does the OEM gets involved in mobility?
Many problems can only be solved if mobility is viewed
and understood holistically. The solutions must be de-
veloped and implemented in a socially just manner to-
gether with the cities and states. Those who get in-
volved early on can help set the course and align their
own products and services accordingly. A blockade
mentality, as I experienced years ago with the reduc-
tion of CO2 fleet emissions, only harms the respective
manufacturer.
Based on these three sustainability criteria, I had my 20 EV
Lab doctoral students evaluate the OEMs. In doing so, I
wanted to neutralize my subjective view. However, the re-
sult reflects my own assessment quite well. Since the
OEMs are quite close to each other in three categories, I
have listed them in reverse alphabetical order.
5.1 OEM Top Group
This group will be able to achieve further growth and thus
also higher profits in the long term. Please do not under-
stand my assessment as a valuation of the stock price. VW
is currently at a price-earnings ratio of 5, and Tesla is at
over 80. I wrote years ago that Tesla's share price is far
too high in my estimation. Tesla is getting more and more
competition and is developing into a normal OEM, for
which price-earnings ratios of over ten are already consid-
ered high.
VW Group (VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda)
I am deliberately not mentioning Porsche here because
this part of the company has been spun off. In addition, the
sports car manufacturer does not play a role when it comes

50
Status electromobility 2023
to sustainability, purely in terms of unit sales. VW, Seat,
Audi, and Skoda use the same platforms up to the mid-
range. In the luxury class, Audi and Porsche have devel-
oped a joint electric vehicle platform for the luxury class
and sports cars. This allows Audi and Porsche to take ad-
vantage of economies of scale. Porsche is positioned con-
siderably above Tesla. Audi positioned against BMW, Mer-
cedes, and Tesla. Audi can use the Group's platforms and
economies of scale to achieve high profits at low cost.
1. Changeover by 2035
The VW Group has already invested enormous sums in
the conversion to electromobility. This comes from high
sales in Europe and China - both markets that politically
force high volumes of BEVs. The Group generates high
profits and can use these to make investments.
BEVs are difficult to transport because of their fire hazard.
The recent fire of two freighters highlighted this danger.
Shipping companies may stop transporting BEVs or
charge high freight rates for them. Thus, both battery cells
and BEVs must be manufactured locally. VW could thus
benefit from the fact that they have numerous factories
worldwide and do not need sea transport.
LFP batteries and sodium batteries could solve this fire
hazard. The problem could also have been a motivation for
the Silk Road with land transport to be able to transport
BEVs more safely. But then this applies in both directions.
2. Efficient vehicles
VW has developed dedicated BEV platforms. These have
advantages in terms of the package, i.e., space utilization
and ergonomics, weight, and cost, provided a high number
of units is achieved, which is the case with the Modular
Electric Building Kit (MEB). To my taste, the MEB (ID.3)
has become a bit large and, thus, too heavy. The crash
concept is fearfully oversized, resulting in a high body
mass. The battery, shaped like a Rittersport chocolate,
could have been made larger with the space under the rear
seat. And the customer's desire for tall vehicles worsens
the aerodynamics. This is at the expense of sustainability.
In addition, the range did not increase for the model update.

51
Status electromobility 2023
This could have been achieved by using more efficient SiC
power electronics, improved motors, and optimized cells.
The announced new small platform of the ID.2 with front-
wheel drive promises to be a compact, lightweight, and
thus sustainable vehicle. A lithium iron phosphate battery
could improve costs and ecology but, unfortunately comes
at the expense of range.
Also commendable are the announcements that the bat-
tery cells will be coated dry instead of wet, which will save
the energy needed for drying.
3. Mobility
VW launched its Moia subsidiary years ago. It prominently
operates the flexible shuttles (shared cabs) in Hamburg.
The company is involved in numerous mobility topics and
thus combines the group's activities in this area. Allegedly,
Moia has been running at a loss for years, but the VW
Group can certainly afford to do so in order to occupy the
topic of mobility in the long term.
Tesla
1. Changeover by 2035
Tesla only builds pure BEVs and has completely fulfilled
this point. However, Tesla has to build new factories, a
sales organization, dealers, and a spare parts supply with
large investments. In return, the company has no costs for
rebuilding production or retraining employees, and there
are no possible severance payments in case of layoffs.
2. Efficient vehicles
Tesla builds very efficient vehicles. In our simulation rating,
the Model 3 lands in first place for efficiency. Where does
that come from?
Tesla builds rather wide but flat vehicles with very good
aerodynamics. The cell concept with round cells contrib-
utes to reducing the height, as does the glass roof, which
is numerous centimeters flatter than a steel roof.
In addition, Tesla designs on the edge. All components are
stressed to the limit of their durability: The batteries are

52
Status electromobility 2023
subjected to high loads during fast charging and heavy ac-
celeration, which leads to premature aging if they are over-
loaded permanently. Numerous components, such as
drive shafts, transmissions, and even motors, break down
if the driver frequently uses the possible acceleration. The
body has a weak rust protection, some add-on parts rattle
after a certain time. The brakes are designed to be too
small for the engine power. The tires are too small for the
engine power, so a sporty driving style leads to high tire
wear. After a few accelerations in succession, the engine
power decreases, and on the Nürburgring - with use that is
certainly not as intended - the cars drop out after a few laps.
Cast components with cracks are nevertheless installed.
The announced "cell to body" design bonds the battery
cells to the body. This means that the battery can no longer
be replaced. However, this idea saves at least 50 kg in
weight and costs. However, since batteries now last a long
time if treated gently, the concept may really be more sus-
tainable than a replaceable variant.
So, the car seems a bit like it's on adrenaline - tuned to the
hilt. The conservative German OEMs would probably
never do that.
You now think I've been mercilessly badmouthing Tesla -
not at all: Tesla obviously knows the limits of technology
very well and knows how customers really drive. Swapping
parts for a few customers is more sustainable than over-
sizing for everyone.
Tesla hasn't been that innovative from the customer's point
of view for years. However, the company has mastered
cost reduction perfectly. This can be seen in the omission
of the radar sensor, which is desirable for safety as a re-
dundancy, or the omission of ultrasonic parking sensors.
The minimal product range, with larger quantities actually
only for the Model 3 and Model Y, also contributes to this.
This saves Tesla development costs, complexity, and thus
resources. And that is definitely very sustainable.
I interpret the idea of pickups and trucks as more of a red
herring.

53
Status electromobility 2023
Tesla has so far chosen the path from the exotic Model S
to mass production with the Model 3. If Tesla were to bring
a small car (Model 2) to market in quantities of millions, my
wish for more sustainability would be fulfilled. Since Tesla
knows and masters the technology very well, I see the mar-
ket entry of this product as realistic in the near future. How-
ever, without a high-end product quality, Tesla will have
problems with the Chinese manufacturers, who are cur-
rently engaged in a price war.
3. Mobility
Here, Tesla is completely conspicuous by its absence.
Nevertheless, Tesla has managed to provide the customer
with a nice route experience. The necessary charging
stops are automatically planned by the navigation system,
the company's own charging stations work smoothly when
plugged in, and the range and also its forecast are exem-
plary.
To that end, Tesla is committed to PV systems and home
storage.
BYD
1. Changeover by 2035
BYD has been producing only BEVs and hybrid vehicles
since 2022. BYD is a global leader, especially in the field
of buses, forklifts, and special vehicles. In China, BYD pro-
duced more BEVs than VW this year. As the largest BEV
manufacturer there, it can also make good use of econo-
mies of scale.
2. Efficient vehicles
In this section, BYD is representative of many Chinese
manufacturers. They use the low-cost lithium iron phos-
phate cell chemistry, especially in low-cost models. Alt-
hough this makes the vehicles somewhat heavier or re-
duces their range, the batteries consume significantly less
energy and resources during production. They are also
significantly cheaper than NMC-based lithium-ion cells.
Another improvement is shown by the sodium batteries
first introduced by the Chinese supplier CATL in 2022. As

54
Status electromobility 2023
a cell producer, BYD should also be able to develop this
technology and bring it into series production in the second
half of the decade.
Lithium is replaced by sodium, nickel and cobalt are no
longer required. These cells are again significantly
cheaper than LFP cells, can be charged faster, and still
deliver enough power even at low temperatures, but they
are somewhat heavier than LFP cells. In a system compo-
site, they are possibly not worse than LFP after all because
they are hardly flammable, and weight-intensive fire pro-
tection measures can therefore be dispensed with. Crash
structures also do not have to protect the cells as much
and can, therefore, be designed lighter. The favorable
prices (resulting from low costs) are positive from a sus-
tainability point of view. These result not only from low per-
sonnel costs but also from low raw material and energy
consumption.
All Chinese manufacturers have the advantage of good
and inexpensive access to rare earth metals through local
extraction. These are used to produce magnets for partic-
ularly efficient electric machines. This allows Chinese
manufacturers to produce at low cost. European manufac-
turers, such as BMW and Renault, forego this and choose
the externally excited synchronous machine as the con-
struction principle, which delivers comparable efficiencies.
3. Mobility
To my knowledge, BYD has no activities in this area.
5.2 OEM middle group
JAC/Great Wall Motors/Xpeng/Nio
I'm only mentioning a few companies here as examples,
which, like JAC and Great Wall, are more in the low-cost
segment, or like Xpeng or Nio are high-priced. I cannot
judge who exactly will win the race and how.
Vehicles from Xpeng were once characterized by a col-
league from a German premium manufacturer as the best
Chinese car. The recently announced cooperation with VW

55
Status electromobility 2023
is not surprising. Nio excels with a battery exchange sys-
tem. This may have significance in China, but in Europe,
as stated in a previous book, I do not believe in this con-
cept.
In China, companies are either supported by the regions,
the state or private investors. However, when China de-
cides to support companies and make them big, the gov-
ernment follows through. And so, it is with the topic of elec-
tromobility.
1. Changeover by 2035
Great Wall Motors, Xpeng, and Nio build exclusively BEVs,
so this point is met. JAC has a mixed portfolio.
2. Efficient vehicles
Great Wall Motors focuses on SUVs and pickups but also
offers small vehicles such as the Ora. JAC generally fo-
cuses on smaller and, thus, more efficient vehicles. Xpeng
sells similar products to Tesla, offers NMC and optionally
LFP cells, and has a kind of autopilot.
Unfortunately, a trend towards SUVs can also be seen
among Chinese manufacturers, with the problems of poor
sustainability that I mentioned.
3. Mobility
None of the manufacturers can be seen to be taking any
steps toward designing comprehensive mobility that is not
based solely on the private automobile.
Renault/Nissan
1. Changeover by 2035
Renault and Nissan were the first OEMs in Europe and Ja-
pan to increasingly focus on BEVs. For example, Renault
produces the ZOE, which was, at times, the best-selling
BEV. Renault/Nissan also has a production program in the
small and mid-size car segment that is more sustainable
than the trend toward SUVs that is unfortunately being ex-
perienced by many OEMs. Renault/Nissan are quite capa-
ble of largely converting to BEVs by 2035. However, the
company makes low profits relative to other OEMs and

56
Status electromobility 2023
thus can only invest in BEV products and production ca-
pacity to a limited extent.
2. Efficient vehicles
Renault has a small vehicle in its range with the ZOE and
has long concentrated on small and mid-size cars. Unfor-
tunately, the trend towards SUVs has not passed Re-
nault/Nissan in recent years.
3. Mobility
I am not aware of any serious efforts by Nissan to act as a
mobility provider. Renault offers car-sharing and carpool-
ing solutions.
Mercedes-Benz
1. Changeover by 2035
With the EQS, Mercedes presented an exemplary elec-
tric -S-Class with low consumption and a long-range and
also used this platform in the EQE. In the mid-size segment,
there is currently still no good offering. However, Mercedes
certainly has the financial strength and competence to es-
tablish a competitor to the Tesla Model 3 there. The Smart
is already only available in pure electric form.
2. Efficient vehicles
Thanks to a relatively narrow and flat vehicle, the EQS and
EQE achieve a long range. The EQXX concept vehicle
shows what else is possible as a touring sedan. It would
be desirable if this vehicle also went into series production.
The Smart rounds off the product range at the bottom end.
However, Mercedes has announced that it only wants to
focus on the high-priced luxury segment. Unfortunately,
that sounds like more SUVs and large vehicles, where
profit margins are currently high. Here, Mercedes would
have to design mid-range vehicles - like Tesla with the
Model 3 - as volume vehicles in order to contribute to low-
ering emissions with the corresponding number of units.

57
Status electromobility 2023
3. Mobility
Mercedes has made a name for itself in activities such as
toll collection and billing. Mercedes is also developing ac-
tivities in this direction in the fleet sector. Mercedes has
sold DriveNow, the car-sharing service set up jointly with
BMW, to Stellantis, which now operates as Share Now.
This means that Mercedes no longer has the option of in-
tegrating this mobility option into mobility concepts.
Hyundai/Kia
1. Changeover by 2035
The South Korean OEM has introduced its "Electric Global
Modular Platform" E-GMP in the mid-range. This is a ded-
icated BEV platform and suitable for high-volume produc-
tion at low cost. The Ioniq 5 and 6 models, among others,
are based on it. With this investment, Hyundai/Kia are
demonstrating their will to drive the transition to electric
mobility. South Korea is also home to LG, one of the larg-
est and most innovative cell producers in the world.
2. Efficient vehicles
The E-GMP has efficient, high-speed, and thus lightweight
electric machines and power electronics made of SiC,
which achieve about 2% better efficiencies than the other-
wise common insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBT).
Only Tesla currently uses silicon carbide (SiC) elsewhere.
Others will follow because the additional cost will soon
drop to less than 100€ per vehicle. The battery does not
have to be designed particularly large for longer ranges
because the batteries can charge energy for about 300 km
range in 30 min. This is the current record value. The 800 V
charging system is not solely responsible for this, but also
cells that are particularly suitable for this and a sufficient
cooling concept.
3. Mobility
Hyundai is increasingly involved in this area but has not yet
made any significant visible investments in it.

58
Status electromobility 2023
BMW
1. Changeover by 2035
BMW is the only OEM in Germany that demands openness
to technology and continues to see the combustion engine
as an option. In addition, BMW is still promoting hydrogen
drive. This is despite the company's own statement that it
will only produce small numbers and niche models, if at all.
Why? Because BMW still has too much gasoline in its
blood and prefers to sell high-margin M models? Because
the company doesn't believe in the BEV after all? Because
they want to use lavish subsidies for research on the other
technologies?
I think the real reason is the potential further profits with
ICEVs. These will continue to be sold to the USA, China,
or other high-margin countries. Even if the EU makes the
move to BEVs quite quickly and vehemently, good profits
can still be made worldwide with combustion engines for a
long time.
Another reason is that by pointing out other options, politi-
cians get confused and then leave the door open to the
combustion engine after all. This is what is happening now,
with the EU allowing the registration of internal combustion
vehicles after 2035 if they are only powered by eFuels.
BMW's earning power is very high, also due to its high
brand image and thus brand value. BMW can invest in
high-quality and efficient BEVs with enormous profits.
2. Efficient vehicles
BMW, unfortunately, builds many large and powerful vehi-
cles, about half of which are SUVs. Only Mini also builds
small cars, although these have poor aerodynamics for de-
sign reasons.
BEVs are built on a platform that also serves internal com-
bustion engines and hybrids. As a result, efficiency and
package advantages are not exploited. This is also why the
vehicles are heavier than pure BEV platforms.
The motors are designed as separately excited synchro-
nous machines without rare earths and have an excellent

59
Status electromobility 2023
efficiency. This is a considerable step towards freeing our-
selves from dependence on this critical raw material.
BMW is planning a pure BEV platform for 2025 that will
probably largely follow Tesla's technology ideas: round
cells with high energy density, glass roof and highly inte-
grated batteries that enable a flat body and low vehicles,
central computer architecture, and aluminum/steel mixed
construction. This is late, but still commendable.
3. Mobility
Unfortunately, BMW has sold the car-sharing provider
DriveNow and is not visibly involved in the topic of mobility.
In Munich, BMW could set impulses...
5.3 OEM last group
Toyota
1. Changeover by 2035
To date, Toyota has relied on the hybrid powertrain, where
it is the world leader in both technology and cost. Forays
into hydrogen propulsion have also kept Toyota from fur-
ther developing the BEV. Currently, there are few visible
and competitive models from Toyota. Japanese compa-
nies are also quite consistent and thus slow to change.
Toyota will have a hard time making the switch to BEV by
2035.
2. Efficient vehicles
Toyota builds vehicles of all categories. The hybrid drive
makes them quite efficient. In the small car segment,
Toyota is the only manufacturer that offers full hybrids. Un-
fortunately, Toyota has not yet made a name for itself at all
in BEVs and is lagging behind technologically there. The
vehicles are rather simply built, largely constructed from
normal steel due to the world car concept, and therefore
not particularly light. In terms of aerodynamics, the prod-
ucts are rather average.
However, Toyota is researching the solid-state battery,
which offers advantages in terms of charging speed and

60
Status electromobility 2023
cost. If Toyota were to achieve a breakthrough in this area,
it would significantly strengthen its competitive position.
3. Mobility
Toyota has planned the Toyota City. Here, new technolo-
gies related to mobility are to be tested and demonstrated.
That is commendable, but too little to improve mobility
worldwide. Otherwise, Toyota shows little activity in this
area.
Stellantis
1. Changeover by 2035
Stellantis is a merger of the Fiat Group, Chrysler, Opel and
the former PSA Group with Citroen, DS and Peugeot.
None of these brands has yet distinguished itself with a
consistent shift to electric vehicles. However, they are
planning a shift to 100% BEV in Europe in 2030. They an-
nounced four platforms for BEV from which they have al-
ready presented the STLA Medium. Their earning power
was long time low but excellent in the last two years, which
enables them to invest into the change to BEV.
Their product range and positioning lie in the lower price
segment making them compete with potential Chinese
companies in the future.
2. Efficient vehicles
Fiat, PSA, and Opel mainly serve the small and mid-size
car segment and thus have a product range that tends to
be economical. Chrysler serves the American market with
correspondingly large vehicles. Without a shift to smaller
vehicles, the product line is not yet suitable for BEVs. A
small dedicated BEV platform is at the moment missing but
announced.
3. Mobility
It purchased the car-sharing provider DriveNow, now
Share Now and is the market leader with the car sharing
Free2Move.

61
Status electromobility 2023
Ford/GM
1. Changeover by 2035
I rate both OEMs similarly. They are largely OEMs operat-
ing in the US market, whose product range is dominated
by large, heavy gasoline vehicles. At Ford, the F-150
pickup is the drawing card and really the only profit maker.
The factories and development centers in Europe are be-
ing shut down in such a way as to avoid too much political
upheaval and, most importantly, to avoid having to pay
severance.
GM is present in the USA and China. In China, GM will lose
market share due to local BEVs and the trade dispute with
the USA.
Both companies lack the financial strength. And due to the
US fixation and the lack of pressure there to switch to
BEVs, the changeover will not succeed.
2. Efficient vehicles
For both brands, I see far too large and inefficient vehicles
that essentially makeup SUVs and pickups. These vehicle
segments also don't electrify well because the batteries get
too big, heavy, and expensive. Certainly, Ford has electri-
fied a truck for a 500 km range with the F150. However,
over 130 kWh housed in a 3-ton tank is not my standard
for a sustainable car. The brand positioning in these two
segments will not allow either brand to make the transition
to efficient vehicles.
3. Mobility
I can't see any real activity here on the part of either OEM.
This may also be partly due to the European perspective.
In other markets, such as the U.S., it may be more socially
acceptable to offer inexpensive large vehicles for the broad
mass of the population because mobility in such a large
country with a correspondingly developed infrastructure is
mainly limited to cars.

62
Status electromobility 2023
6 Conclusion and principle of hope
I firmly believe that only by striving for true sustainability
can we improve mobility in all aspects. The pure fixation
on CO2 - and then only in operation - illuminates only one
aspect of the whole problem. A holistic lifecycle assess-
ment must be carried out, and all aspects of sustainability
must be included. This includes all ecological effects and
an economic calculation that internalizes all external costs
and considers these over the life cycle. As a third aspect,
mobility must be designed in a socially just way and also
enable the weaker ones (in whatever dimension) to partic-
ipate.
Measures to achieve this in the larger cities are the expan-
sion of public transport and the integration of cabs into it.
These should be shared to reduce costs. The private car
must become superfluous through car sharing in small
communities so that people are happy to do without it.
Then, the space that is freed up can be better divided up
and managed and made available to weaker road users,
such as cyclists and pedestrians, as a separate infrastruc-
ture.
In the countryside, in contrast to the city, the car is more
likely to be the solution because it offers a high degree of
flexibility and, with few people and light traffic, flexible and
efficient transportation. However, the vehicles must be
electric, which is not a major problem in rural areas in
terms of charging.
Commuters must be enabled to forego using their own
cars through offers such as shared transportation, park
and ride, and carpooling. This is the only way to reduce
congestion. Then, however, pressures such as tolls, park-
ing fees, limited drive-in budgets, or separate lanes for ve-
hicles with multiple passengers (carpool lanes), thus more
congestion for lone drivers, can discourage commuters
from driving into the city individually at rush hour.

63
Status electromobility 2023
In general, offers must be expanded first and only then
cautiously supplemented by repressive measures.
I hope that policymakers will introduce a Europe-wide cap-
and-trade system for CO2 with cushioning for the finan-
cially weak. This would have to be designed across all sec-
tors. This is the only way to reliably reduce CO2 emissions.
The market would ensure that the most effective and least
expensive measures were implemented first.
We must all realize that everything we do must be done
out of love for present and future people. Be it the climate,
the avoided traffic jams, or the enabled mobility for an el-
derly person, everything happens for us humans, after all.
In MCube, we have summarized this under the three di-
mensions of improving air, time, and space. Only in this
way can we inspire and convince fellow human beings of
our measures and ideas.

64
Status electromobility 2023
7 Sources
Sources cited in the text:
S. Wolff, Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Concepts, Dissertation TU Munich
2023
Schröder, D.; Kirn, L.; Kinigadner, J.; Lienkamp, M.; End-
ing the myth of mobility at zero costs: An external cost
analysis, Research in Transportation Economics 97(2),
DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2022.101246, 2022.
Aaron Kosleck: Does Car-Sharing Reduce Car Ownership?
Empirical Evidence from Germany; Sustainability 2021, 13,
7384.
Further sources:
In the following books, which have already been published,
essential basics and topics have been addressed:
Status Electromobility 2020, Lienkamp, Schmidt, Wolff;
2020:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Markus_Lien-
kamp/publications?pubType=book&ev=prf_pubs_book
Status Nutzfahrzeuge 2020, Wolff, Lienkamp, Schaller;
2021
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Markus_Lien-
kamp/publications?pubType=book&ev=prf_pubs_book

65
Status electromobility 2023
8 Author
Markus Lienkamp
Prof. Dr.-Ing Markus Lienkamp, born in 1967, studied me-
chanical engineering at the TU Darmstadt and Cornell Uni-
versity, USA. He received his doctorate in materials sci-
ence from the TU Darmstadt in 1995. In 1995, he began
his professional career in a trainee program at VW. From
2002 to 2009, he held various positions at Volkswagen
Group Research, most recently as head of the Electronics
and Vehicle Department. Since the end of 2009, he has
headed the Chair of Automotive Engineering at the Tech-
nical University of Munich. There, his research focuses on
electromobility, automated driving, and mobility.
Under his leadership the electric vehicle MUTE was pre-
sented at the IAA in 2011, the electric cab EVA at the To-
kyo Motor Show in 2013, and Visio.M as a drivable proto-
type with road approval at the end of 2014. At the 2017 IAA,
he and partner chairs unveiled the aCar electric vehicle for
Africa. This gave rise to EVUM Motors, which produces the
vehicle.
He is the scientific co-director of the BMBF Future Cluster
MCube, which aims to improve mobility in metropolitan re-
gions.
Markus Lienkamp is a co-founder and co-partner of the
companies Malibu GmbH, Zmoove GmbH, and driveb-
locks GmbH and holds shares in the companies Aampere
GmbH and Mobility Technology Center GmbH. He does
not represent any interests of these companies in this book.