Dutchman ends 'world's longest electric car trip' in Australia

Wiebe Wakker took just over three years crossing 33 countries in his 95,000 km journey by electric car
Wiebe Wakker took just over three years crossing 33 countries in his 95,000 km journey by electric car

A Dutchman completed an epic 95,000 kilometre (59,000 mile) journey by electric car in Sydney Sunday in a bid to prove the viability of such vehicles in tackling climate change.

Wiebe Wakker drove his retrofitted station wagon nicknamed "The Blue Bandit" across 33 countries in what he said was the world's longest-ever by electric car.

The trip from the Netherlands to Australia took just over three years and was funded by public donations from around the world, including electricity to charge the Bandit, food and a place to sleep.

Wakker drove across a variety of countries and environments including Turkey, Iran, India, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia, with the route determined by the offers he received on his website.

"I wanted to change people's opinions and inspire people to start driving electric by showing the advantages of sustainable mobility," Wakker said.

"If one man can drive to the other side of the world in an electric car, then EVs () should definitely be viable for daily use."

Wakker said before the car was modified, it would have used 6,785 litres (1,800 US gallons) of petrol to complete the journey.

The modified vehicle can travel 200 kilometres on a single charge, with Wakker saying he spent just US$300 on electricity, much of it in the remote desert Outback of Australia.


Explore further

Electric-powered van to make trans-Africa trip

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Dutchman ends 'world's longest electric car trip' in Australia (2019, April 7) retrieved 23 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-04-dutchman-world-longest-electric-car.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
490 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 07, 2019
Stupid PR. For sure he did not do this to "prove the viability of such vehicles in tackling climate change." Please take a look at his early videos and news articles. He did this out of pure fun and adventure.

Apr 07, 2019
Stupid PR. For sure he did not do this to "prove the viability of such vehicles in tackling climate change." Please take a look at his early videos and news articles. He did this out of pure fun and adventure.

I bet that there were also people who thought Lindbergh's first transatlantic flight was just "stupid PR for fun"

Oh well...history repeats itself, I guess.
There will always be stupid people who say the same stupid things.

Apr 07, 2019
anti, at least there weren't stupid PR people that started claiming Lindbergh's flight was to showcase global warming.

Apr 07, 2019
So, did this jackass keep a record of how much fossil fuel was burnt in generating the electricity for his wasteful joyride? In the Netherlands, only 6% of the electricity is from renewables.

Wakker saying he spent just US$300 on electricity, much of it in the remote desert Outback of Australia.

Oh yes, Australia, where the rush to be "green" has made electricity unaffordable for many.
https://theconver...it-99187

Apr 07, 2019
So, did this jackass keep a record of how much fossil fuel was burnt in generating the electricity for his wasteful joyride? In the Netherlands, only 6% of the electricity is from renewables.

Wakker saying he spent just US$300 on electricity, much of it in the remote desert Outback of Australia.

Oh yes, Australia, where the rush to be "green" has made electricity unaffordable for many.
https://theconver...it-99187


The "jackass" at least did something with his life. However, had to take a look at that link of yours that justifies the quotes around green.

The article states that reduction in coal brings the cost of electricity up to about (Aus) 100/MWh from sub 50. Meanwhile, here in the US where coal is allegedly making a resurgence (it ain't) it costs about US 125 per MWh. according to EIA data. https://www.eia.g...mt_5_6_a

Apr 07, 2019
Phys.org is very often guilty of publishing b.s. articles like this. Where are your editors? Fossil fuels are used to produce electric cars and nearly all the electricty they use. The 'electric revolution' isn't going to 'combat climate change'. Stop with the lies, we're all tired of it.

Apr 07, 2019
Fossil fuels are used to produce electric cars and nearly all the electricty they use. The 'electric revolution' isn't going to 'combat climate change'. Stop with the lies, we're all tired of it.

The world is shifting to renewables. Car makers (especially those that make EVs) are shifting towards using even more renewables in the mix than is the local national average (for obvious reasons).
The electricity for EVs comes from the energy mix, same as every other electricity. EVs are already way cleaner than ICE cars (even if the electricity for them were produced by 100% coal powerplants)

The more power generation shifts to renewables the cleaner they'll get. ICE cars? No. they will never get even a bit cleaner.

EVs are not the single solution to climate change but they are a part of it. ICE cars are only part of the problem.

So who's lying, here, StupidNet?
You are, that's who.

Apr 07, 2019
The world is shifting to renewables. Car makers (especially those that make EVs) are shifting towards using even more renewables in the mix than is the local national average (for obvious reasons).

Chicken Littles, just parroting the LIES fed to them by their AGW Cult.

Here are just a bit of the sad truth about renewables --
https://www.youtu...cUf0DT8A
https://www.youtu...amp;t=1s
https://www.youtu...amp;t=3s
https://www.youtu...amp;t=2s

Apr 07, 2019
I bet that there were also people who thought Lindbergh's first transatlantic flight was just "stupid PR for fun"


Yes, except Lindbergh's flight was actually difficult to pull off. 33 hours of non-stop flight in an airplane that was dangerous to fly already and could simply stop working any second, over open ocean with certain death waiting if anything whatsoever went wrong. He didn't have any modern navigation aids, weather reports or even a radio that could carry far enough to ask for help - just four sandwiches and couple liters of water.

This guy just went to social media and started begging for room and board, then drove <200 km to the next place. The accomplishment wasn't that he did it in an electric car, but that he got all the way through by panhandling.

If he had taken a modern diesel car, he could have completed 1000+km a day anywhere with decent roads, and finished the whole course in less than half a year.

Apr 07, 2019
@antigoracle.
Australia, where the rush to be "green" has made electricity unaffordable for many.
https://theconver...it-99187
You're a liar, @antigoracle. The cost of Electricity in OZ had more to do with changing market conditions; additional/repaired/upgraded distribution/infrastructure costs; old Coal power stations reaching their end of safe/cost-effective life (would be even MORE expensive to replace with new coal power plants); INCREASED COST of Coal and Gas for existing power plants (this factor contributed 40% to electricity price rises); and energy companies 'gouging' customers contributed on top of all that.

In fact renewables increasing to the point 'transition/implementation-stage
costs will soon be behind us; and the new system based on most coming from wind/solar/hydro will make Fossil Power even more expensive than renewables. You're a lying Putin stooge, @antigoracle. Obviously.

Apr 07, 2019
NoStrings.
People are burning wood for heating in both countries, a veritable stone age (think about particular matter pollution and health issues thanks to millions of people burning it, before claiming that wood is a renewable resource). The problem is not trying to switch to non-fossil fuels, but the backwardness of both countries about nuclear power (neither has a single nuclear power plant). Germany is following the same trend, defaulting on their plans for CO2 emissions reduction by 2020 and long term also, due mostly to decommissioning nuclear reactors, driven by hysterical greenies. A combination of nuclear and renewables is the solution.
I already pointed out the PROLIFERATION etc dangers of increasing/widespread Nuclear installations/materials. Missed that? As for TRANSITIONAL factors as we go renewables path, these are just that: transitional. As renewables get to 'critical mass', a MIX of approx 25% Gas/75% Renewables is a sensible goal. Good luck to us all. :)

Apr 07, 2019
In the interest of open debate.
WHY I SAID GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena | London Real
https://www.youtu...Y2tjmr_Y

Apr 07, 2019
80% of electric cars in China, Eastern Europe, get their recharges from coal-fired power plants. Which means they pollute FAR more than any gasoline car.

Apr 08, 2019
Which means they pollute FAR more than any gasoline car.

Even the dirtiest coal powerplant is more efficient than a small ICE engine.

As for eastern europe in general. I don't think EVs are much of a thing there, yet. So the point is pretty moot in any case.

As for China: No. China has about a third of it's electricity from renewables. Two thirds of all newly installed power was renewables last year.

Apr 08, 2019
antigoracle, the disgusting troll, wrote:

So, did this jackass keep a record of how much fossil fuel was burnt in generating the electricity for his wasteful joyride? In the Netherlands, only 6% of the electricity is from renewables.


I'm actually from The Netherlands and, knowing what a notorious liar and professional spreader of misinformation you are, I decided to check. Guess what? You are full of sh*t.

Of all electrical power generated in The Netherlands, 17% was from renewable sources last year (2018). Of all energy used (so that includes gas, coal, etc.), 7.3% was from renewable sources, and the two numbers are growing by >10% per year.

Source: Energieopwek, the official overarching source of all energy producing companies in The Netherlands.

You are a liar and a fraud. Are you bought and paid for, or simply serving any evil cause you can free of charge because you are simply a vile cretin?

Apr 08, 2019
Another Chicken Little jackass, brays above.
https://www.dutch...-report/
Who is the liar and fraud.

Apr 09, 2019
Wow! 200 miles on a single charge! That's almost as far as.....8 gallons of gas takes my car. And gassing up takes...3 minutes...after driving 400 miles...

Apr 09, 2019
Another Chicken Little jackass, brays above.
https://www.dutch...-report/
Who is the liar and fraud.


Your *own* link here says 14%. You say 6%. You are a liar, a fraud, and, as is obvious from the fact that you post this stupid link that contradicts your idiotic claims, you have no honor and no self-respect.

Apr 11, 2019
And guess what? Complete and utter science from antigoracle, the proven liar and fraud who's so terribly bad at it that he's cowering in what I would assume was shame if I didn't know he is utterly shameless.

Apr 14, 2019
a MIX of approx 25% Gas/75% Renewables is a sensible goal. Good luck to us all. :)


Good luck indeed.

Google for the capacity factor of solar or wind power, and you'll find the numbers have to be turned around: 25% renewable, 75% gas, in order for the system to work without truly massive amounts of energy storage.

The capacity factor means the relationship between design (peak) power and actual average output. For on-shore wind power this is around 4:1 and solar around 8:1. In a power grid, you can't put in more than people are using. To achieve 75% renewables, you'd have to integrate outputs that well exceed your grid demand, else you can't achieve the averages.

Some locations get better capacity factors. Some off-shore wind farms can approach 2:1 but this is not universal. Likewise for solar - half the time it's night: no output. Even optimistically speaking, you need about half the energy from somewhere else - in practice from gas and other fossil fuels.

Apr 14, 2019
There's a common misunderstanding (or deliberate ignorance) about the behavior of renewable sources like solar and wind.

People think a wind turbine makes all the power any time it turns, or that a solar panel makes all the power so long as the sun shines. In reality, wind turbines put out power relative to the cube of wind speed (v^3) so most of the generated electricity comes out during short peaks of high wind speeds. Likewise, for solar panels, most of the energy output comes during a small number of hours in the middle of the day, during the sunny season, for all solar panels over a thousand miles around. Wind power too correlates with itself over hundreds of miles.

This is not a trivial problem. Instead of having relatively short "gaps" in output that you need to patch by running other generators occasionally, the opposite is true: the other generators must run most of the time for most of the power, and the renewables displace them for short periods at a time.

Apr 14, 2019
In order to make a high-renewables scenario work in the current political climate, you only have two options:

1) Kick the can down the road: push the excess power into larger grids like Germany, Denmark, Netherlands etc. are doing. Then pretend you're having high renewable integration rate while other people are the ones actually using the power and dealing with the intermittency while you continue to burn fossil fuels.

2) Invest in massive scale energy storage.

Everyone's doing #1, nobody's doing #2 because it costs too much. So there you have it.

(There's also a third option called curtailment, like the UK is doing, but people are questioning the point of paying wind turbine owners to keep their turbines shut down...)

Apr 14, 2019
For example:

https://en.wikipe...y_source

According to a 2007 study of wind in the United States, ten or more widely separated wind farms connected through the grid could be relied upon for from 33 to 47% of their average output (15–20% of nominal capacity) as reliable, baseload power, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height.[19][20] When calculating the generating capacity available to meet summer peak demand, ERCOT (manages Texas grid) counts wind generation at 8.7% of nameplate capacity.[35]


These low figures from 8.7% to 20% of nominal capacity are largely due to the fact that when wind power really is available, there's often too much of it for the demand at the time, and it has to be curtailed or sold elsewhere. That in turn makes for a lower probability that you actually get more than 10-20% of the power when you actually need it - and that's for a large country/state.

Apr 14, 2019
In fact, the main reason why states like Texas bother to invest in wind power at all is because generating it earns them federal subsidies, which are paid even when the power prices turn negative. It makes the owners money to pay someone to waste the electricity somewhere, and some utilities even give away free power to people.

The amount of negative sales and curtailment went down with the construction of new power corridors (CREZ), but now they're congested again with more wind power coming online.

Apr 17, 2019
@Eikka:

In The Netherlands, three offshore windfarms are now being built - without a single cent of subsidy.


May 13, 2019
Sorry, but that's a Leaping Dutchman, not Flying.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more