Blog

The above film clearly shows that electric vehicles (EV’s) pollute 90% less than fuel vehicles over the same distance travelled and are cheaper. It is what it is.

Electric Mobility is the furture, if you like it or not. An off-road vehicle pollutes more than three times as much as a passenger car. Did you know that?

Conversely, this means you will recoup (pay-back period 3 to 4 years) your investment three times faster, because you spend significantly less on fuel alone as bonus. Your 4×4 consumes a significant amount of fuel, whereas electricity is nearly free. You also save a lot of money on maintenance, which is also very high for a 4×4 car. But you recognise that.

Climate Agreement

The Climate Agreement stipulates that all transport will gradually become emission-free from 2030 onwards and will no longer emit any CO2 by 2050. In most cases, this means switching from a diesel or petrol combustion engine to electric driving. (quote Change.inc dec25)

You will no longer be able to drive your current fuel off-road vehicle on the road. 145 cities in Europe have already banned vehicles that are dirtier than Euro-5. Soon this will be Euro 6. In Paris, parking a petrol car has already become five times more expensive. In a busy city, pollution is much worse for many more people who live there.

This means that the photo below will be taken in the not too distant future. This (fake-) photo has now been showed to you, but you understand what we are referring to.

Do we just throw away so many usable cars because they are too dirty, or can we still use them for something else? Convert them to clean, for example. That is what we shout, but you already understood that.

The polluter, industry, does not pay for the damage they cause

“Not only agriculture (the meat industry), but also other polluting sectors, such as industry and transport, pay very little for the environmental damage they cause. Yet they receive the most government support”. (quote: ESB.nu, nov2025)

“The climate problem is well known; now it’s time for solutions”, says Bernice Notenboom, who has crossed deserts, reached the South Pole on skis, climbed Mount Everest, and worked for NASA and ESA, Dutch newspaper Trouw, 11 October 2025. Just act.

Explanations

If you have seen the film above, you will understand how low the return on oil drilling, pumping and fuel production actually is. Bizarrely low, in fact.

Why electricity is so much cleaner, more economical and, above all, so much more efficient. With fuel, you throw away 80% of the potential power that fuel contains (called calorific value). And then the burned gases end up in nature, which can no longer handle it. That’s what we do.

Hidden pollutions

But there are still things that many people do not realise. Did you know that we first need to generate electricity in order to operate an oil refinery? The direct consequence of Drill baby Drill?

In the Netherlands, we call this “the elephant in the room that no one wants to see”. You’d rather be blind than see that big elephant. Then it’s not there, right? To see it, you just need to read on. Take the bull by the horns. Great for birthdays with Uncle Ben, the diesel driver since 1960.

The Movie showed: Fuel doesn’t grow on trees, it’s pumped up from deep below, as a thick black or brown sticky mass. You can’t do anything with it. Only after refining thousands of miles away we can do something with it.

So if we look into the necessary proces of refining closely, refining is heating, pumping, filtering, distilling, purifying, heating- and distilling again etcetera. Roughly speaking it’s electric energy consuming: each litre of fuel requires 6 kilo-watts of electric power (6kW).

This is Before you buy it at the fuel station and start driving. (Multiply this by 50 if you fill up with 50 litres. 50 x 6 kW = 300 kilowatts). Every week? Next 10 years?

Calculations fuel to electric

e-Rovers converted 4×4 cars use 21 kW electric power per 100 km/60 miles driving, so with those 6 kW per litre (from well to your filling station), we can already electric drive 28 km/18 miles away.

The moral of the story: People have to generate electricity firsty (and burn gas to heat) to make petrol from crude oil, which you then put into a fuel engined car that doesn’t even convert 20% of it into power for driving. Moving your car. And burning this fuel and exhaust this polluting hot stuff into the air you have to breathe. (calculation: 35% power remains out the engine and 45% then disappears into gears resistance leaving approximately 20%. The rest is lost in dirty combustion air and heat loss). e-Rovers no longer uses gears.

That does not outweigh the pollution caused by manufacturing a battery that will then continue to function properly for 30 years. And can already be re-used for 85%.

Diesel engines achieves a higher efficiency, true, but is also much more polluting than petrol (small dust particles extra harmful to the lungs). This is why diesel vehicles are already disappearing from the streets and their second-hand value is falling rapidly.

As you can see, we are stating the facts clearly. We have examined the first part of the elephant. Now for the rest of the elephant continue.

Read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

All those exhaust gases end up in the the thin skin around our Earth, the atmosphere above you, is only 200 km/125 miles high before space begins. (this distance you cycle in 6 hours).

The second moral of this story is: what we’re actually doing is stupid:

If we don’t use 6kW of electricity per litre to make it, how many electric cars we can charge with that? And extra is: no big sea tankers sailing across the world to transport that drilled oil to refineries? And diesel trucks to bring this to your gas station? Every day? Have you ever thought about that?

It’s much more polluting than the drill baby drill lobby would have us believe.

More about hidden waste in the fuel engine and gearboxes at the bottom of this page.

That’s a whole bunch of pollution. And where we dump all these emissions day in day out, since the industrial revolution began 125 years ago. But Nature cannot handle this anymore, thats the problem.

Data is no meaning

Can you trust data? Not on social media. People talk nonsens more and more. We cannot explain it any more clearly than the image below.

Check these start to read : after research by universities around the world since 1965, all new data is double-checked, peer-viewed and published worldwide. So you can thrust these. All these studies are ranked by the United Nations called the IPCC Panel. Get a look:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

https://www.copernicus.eu/en collects data too, check it. Do not believe the pic below.

Hydrogen plans fade away

Where to use hydrogen? Where green hydrogen (H2) was presented in 2015 as a sustainable solution for all sectors – from fuel for passenger cars to heating homes – it is becoming increasingly clear, only in heavy industry where the energy carrier can make a difference. For example, as fuel for heavy road transport, sea shipping or in heavy industrial processes such as the production of steel, fertiliser and basic chemical elements. It’s no longer seen as a fuel for cars. The battery won that battle years ago.

Stellantis, the parent company of Opel, Citroën, Alfa Romeo, Lancia and Fiat, among others, is putting the brakes on its hydrogen car plans. So reports TopGear (july2025). Besides high development costs, the company cites the limited number of hydrogen refuelling stations, among other important reasons. The hydrogen market is said to be a ‘niche with no prospect of medium-term economic sustainability’. VW, Honda, Toyota, Kia all are going 100% EV.

On this page, we explain more “solutions” that do not tell the whole story. The negative half is concealed. Buried in ashes. Once again, are we making the world cleaner with lies?

Below, we explain why this is the case in a logical manner. (Here we are again straying far from the commercial narrative of selling our product. So be it.)

Why does the green-hydrogen idea waste 50% of electricity in the process?

To explain this simply, you could approach it this way: to make hydrogen (electrolise using green electricity wind/solar), about 50% energy is lost in this process. Hardly anyone knows that, its not told to you in papars, but check it, look it up. That lost electricity (using the hydrogen route) could have been used in the grid direct to cook, heat your home or charge your car.

If you put the same amount of electricity into a battery, 95% comes back. The movie at the top explanes this evenb better.

Metaphor to inderstand this above hydrogen-route more clear:

“You buy 1 whole loaf of bread at the bakery. At the bakery shop, you take half of the bread out of the bag and throw it in the bin before leaving the shop”. That’s the hydrogen dream …

And any car running hydrogen is an electric car. Only the electricity is “stored” via hydrogen. Did you know this?

Expanding the production of green hydrogen remains a major challenge in any case. Comparisons of the costs of green hydrogen based on electrolysis show, for example, that it is still relatively expensive at present. A few years ago, green hydrogen was still being presented as the panacea for the energy transition. Since then, the hype has cooled and expectations have become more realistic.

Barbara Baarsma (PwC) points to move to circular business models, focusing on making products last as long as possible, repairing and re-using or recycling. (bron Change.inc may25). “We want the same thing – a sustainable society with as much prosperity for as many people as possible. Then we need to use the stuff we mine from the Earth economical. Re-use is the best answer and be more circular”.

Slowly shifting towards more production in Europe

Volkswagen launches its own battery factory through subsidiary PowerCo:

Volkswagen has started producing its own batteries for electric cars in Salzgitter with its subsidiary PowerCo. Investments of 1 billion euros have been made to date. Initially, the new factory will only produce a few hundred battery cells per day, but Volkswagen wants to increase this to 60,000 to 70,000 per day.

With a capacity of 20 gigawatt hours, the PowerCo factory should be able to supply batteries for 250,000 electric cars annually. Interestingly, PowerCo has a strategic partnership with the American start-up QuantumScape, which is developing a so-called solid-state battery that can provide a longer range and faster charging times.

(according to Der Spiegel, dec2025/Change.inc). There is a lot of lithium in the groundwater at a depth of 400 metres beneath the German Ruhr area. The heat that comes with it is used to heat thousands of homes. So there is no need for Chinese batteries, and e-Rovers also use batteries that come from data centres and hospitals (NoWoS). These have to be replaced after five years. They are still 98 to 102% effective and cost a quarter of the price of new batteries.

In Norway, a battery factory was shut down but is now being restarted. China and America, and of course the war in Ukraine with a dangerous Russia, have accelerated this change. Finally.

All waste with the gears and 4-stroke fuel engine

Detailed explanation of why we are not using the entire existing powertrain and gears (which is now available for melting down and re-use – two birds with one stone, as we say here).

GEARS> Any gearbox consumes energy, without you noticing it. A 4×4 has 4 gearboxes. Loss of 35% going up to 48% because of wear & tear of the gears moving around and 2 differentials. And a 4×4 trucks has bigger loss than smaler cars that is obvious. (48% was tested by Land Rover in 1996 on a 125.000 miles fuel Defender).

Below is one standard differential of any brand; you have two under your car (the big ball under the car between the wheels, front- and rear). With all moving parts inside original.

Solihull

Land Rover factory, the Solihull plant in England, investigated the hidden-gears-resistance itself in 1995 and discovered the staggering figure of 48% loss in the drivetrain of a Defender that had driven 200,000 km/125,000 miles. This was due to wear and tear, increased play and water that had entered the various drive train housings. Almost 50% of the power generated by an engine is lost there. So even if you replace the combustion engine with an efficient bold-on electric motor, almost 35 to 50% of the power is lost in the drive train only.

The result is that you need to install 35 to 50% more batteries to cover the same distance on one load of battery power. The e-Rovers effective electric 3-in-1 e-drive is in the yellow ball. We only consume 3% in the drive.

Below the gears box inside you never saw:

ALL GEARS OUT< a little more on this subject: all parts inside turning eating power: right above the axel the engine is working on (engine not drawn here). Below left- and right the part connected to the 2 differentials (not on the drawing): movie: what happens inside?

The upper part is the gearbox, in the middle is the transfer case, and below are the high and low gears and the differential between the front and rear axles. There are also two differentials in the front and rear axles that consume your power. 35 to 50% is gone.

Convertion a 4×4 offroad car to 100% electric is not easy, we hope you understand better.

FUEL> Every 4-stroke combustion engine has only 1 out of 4 working strokes. The other 3 strokes are to let new air in, get rid of the burnt fuel and 1 stroke to compress the new air. 3 power-consuming idle strokes for 1 working stroke. Of the potential power in fuel, 100%, only 35% comes out of the engine as power that propels the car forward. 65% is lost as heat, the 4-stroke process and internal resistance.

And of that 35%, gearboxes destroy another 35 to 50%, as explained above. That leaves very little. And as explained earlier, producing fuel already costs 6,000 watts or 6 kW per litre. Per litre… In Formula 1, the absolute record is 50% efficiency, in combination with an electric motor, batteries and an electric turbocharger, as well as energy recovery during braking.

Sentiment against change is turning

If we ask anyone: how will we drive the car in 50 years, there is the unanimous answer: ELECTRIC. So the question is not, if we will drive electric, but when. This sentiment is called “transition” we read about everywere.

In Clearing The Air: A hopeful guide to solving climate change, Ritchie makes it clear in 304 pages that many important solutions to stop global warming are already available. It is mainly a matter of speeding up implementation. (Quote Change.inc, oct25). Click on daily base: https://www.change.inc

The market share is even growing

This is an interesting fact for investors, the market is much larger than you initially thought.

If you reach this far reading, you will understand that e-Rovers sets are certainly not going to convert the 4×4 vehicles that have already been built, but also many 4×4 vehicles that will be delivered over the next 15 years on petrol/mild hybride to 100% electric. This shows you that the market is much larger than you initially thought.

It is important to understand that we will not only be converting 4×4 cars that are currently on the road, but also all 4×4 cars that are yet to be manufactured and sold with fuel engines.

Mild hybrids only run on electricity for 50 kilometres, (32miles) after which the fuel engine kicks in with relatively high consumption of fuel. Converting to 100% electric is still worthwhile, especially as fuel prices are set to rise. Less fuel means more expensive extraction and refining and regional policies.

Geopolitical oppression

Resource wars are not a threat to the future – they have been going on for a long time.

Whether it’s gas, oil, lithium or water: scarcity is politically generated, dependence is targeted.

The good news:

🌱 Every kilowatt hour of renewable energy is a step away from geopolitical oppression.

♻️ Every circular use reduces the risk of conflict.

⚡ Efficiency is a precautionary measure for security.

2026 must not be another year of energy policy short-sightedness.
(Quote: Claudia Kemfert, quote Klimaschutz Jan 2026#)

Infographic: Trump hunts for oil on the American continent, while China dominates with solar energy. Who is thinking smartly about the future?

Hybrid plug-in cars

Less clean than expected. Plug-in hybrid cars are popular, but in reality they emit more CO2 than official test results suggest. This is according to environmental organisation Transport & Environment, based on an analysis of data from the European Environment Agency (EEA).

According to the so-called WLTP standard, petrol and diesel cars emit an average of 139 grams of CO2 per kilometre, compared to 35 grams of CO2 per kilometre for plug-in hybrids. Based on spot checks in real-world situations, petrol and diesel cars have average emissions of 166 grams per kilometre and plug-in hybrids 135 grams of CO2 per kilometre.

This means that cars that combine an electric motor with a conventional combustion engine have an emissions footprint that is almost four times higher than the standard test results. (European Environment Agency (EEA) sept25.

That is why e-Rovers expects to convert the first hybrid 4x4s to 100% electric in 10 years’ time. Not only converting used cars today, but also those that are yet to be built. We believe this is an interesting prospect for investors with a view.

Synthetic fuels

Synthetic fuel you put in 100% electricity (Kw) and get only 40% out to the road (to drive, effectively measured). 60% loss in transition. A fun miscalculation is that in making this fuel, co2 or carbon is used from the air. This is counted as profit. But after combustion in the engine, this comes back 1 to 1, plus the combustion in itself. Every combustion releases pollutants.

Bio fuels

Then bio-algae oil? The idea of driving, sailing or flying on algae oil is not new. Oil company ExxonMobil rigged a veritable algae plan and for years invested millions in the alternative fuel. The program has since been discontinued. Algae requires a lot of light and nutrients to grow, which makes the production process expensive. It cannot compete with petroleum, which has a higher energy density and a lower price. In addition, the combustion involves the same, creating foul exhaust fumes. While it takes more energy to make algae than petroleum. A double-no, therefore. 85% loss in transition.

Yet we are making progress in being less polluting. Cleaning up cities go faster and faster and speeding up: 63 european cities refuse under euro6 all vehicles. A 260% growth in 3 years. London Lunaz, Amsterdam, PARIS: all ban the fuel cars.

SAF, sustainable aviation fuel, is a biofuel made from organic waste streams, mainly used cooking oil. Although burning it emits as many greenhouse gases as burning conventional kerosene, SAF is more sustainable over its entire life cycle. same for GTL and HVO.

Chemically processed natural gas GTL and diesel oil based on cooking oil and bio-residue HVO. What is not mentioned is that all these types of ‘new’ fuels require a great deal of electricity to produce. With the same amount of electricity, every EV can travel at least three times further. Seems rather foolish to us.

We were into hydrogen for Paris-Dakar

e-Rovers participated as an initiator with Race-the-Green, a project to complete the Paris-Dakar rally on hydrogen and batteries using our powerful SRM motor. We participated with TU Delft with the H2 race car. The project was discontinued in 2022 due to the inability to find a sponsor. However, we do have the technical knowledge to convert every e-Rover to hydrogen batteries after 2030. Our backbone is prepared.

Dutch Technical University: https://www.forze-delft.nl

Fossil industry blabla

If electric cars are so bad, why is the fossil industry pouring billions into spreading lies and misinformation about them?

If electric cars were genuinely “crap”, the oil and gas industry wouldn’t need to work so hard to convince people.

They wouldn’t be funding think tanks.

They wouldn’t be paying lobbyists.

They wouldn’t be amplifying scare stories and half-truths through friendly media outlets.

They wouldn’t be flooding social media with the same recycled myths year after year.

They wouldn’t need the propaganda train of American Petroleum.

Bad products fail on their own.

No one had to run misinformation campaigns to kill off cassette tapes, DVDs, or coal fires in living rooms. 

Better technology simply replaced them.

Electric cars threaten something much bigger than a vehicle choice. 

They threaten fuel sales, servicing revenue, and decades of dependency on an inefficient system that burns most of its energy as waste.

They also threatem self esteem, and masculinity, because some men think have attached their manhood to a noise and clunky gears.

That’s why the pushback is so loud.

That’s why the talking points are so repetitive.

That’s why the facts are so often ignored.

This isn’t about freedom of choice.

It’s about protecting a business model that knows its best days are behind it.

EXPLANATION TERMS

EV (BEV) = (Battery) Electric Vehicle.

Hybrid = Vehicle that is powered by an fuel engine ICE and another source of power such as a electric engine/motor and battery or H2.

H2 = Hydrogen, another storage of energy, car runs electric (EV).

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine, burning fuel, (bio-) diesel, LPG/GPL gas, LNG, blue diesel etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer. (VW, Toyota, Land Rover etc)

JLR = Jaguar Land Rover, TATA India owned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_Land_Rover

Circulair jeans MUD: https://mudjeans.com/nl/pages/yousstex-international-mud-jeans

DeepL.com we use for translations, among help from friends and family. It rattles a bit, we work on this issue. Write this site in UK English, because 85% of those interested in 4×4 EV offroad cars live outside the Netherlands and drive their 4×4 daily. Our logo:

There is no Planet-B

If you have reached the end of this page, congratulations!

We can tell you that we have had a lot of fun trying to explain things here. How bad things have become for humanity. And making money at the expense of that same humanity and nature. We only have one planet, and we live on it ourselves.

The moral of this story is: Even animals do not shit in their own nests. Humans do.