Skip to content
RiDERgy RiDERgy
Smart Charge · 29 April 2025 · 1 hr 8 min

Ep. 11: Von StreetScooter bis Zukunftslust – Prof. Achim Kampker über Resilienz, Skalierung und die Kunst, Fortschritt menschlich zu machen

Transcript

Cleaned up from a machine transcript. Translations are machine-generated and may contain errors.

Welcome to the Smart Charge by RiDERgy Podcast. This is Claudio Geyken, Founder and CEO of RiDERgy. This is your show to learn about all things energy management and smart charging innovation for electric vehicles and fleets.

Yes, great to have you here today. Achim, how are you today? Yes, the sun is shining, beautiful weather. I'm in a positive mood and looking forward to our conversation. Wonderful. Yes, before we really get into the nitty-gritty, so the listeners can get a bit of a feel for who's in this conversation, feel free to elaborate a bit. Also, where you come from, what made you the person you are. Oh, yes. That's probably a full evening's programme. But I'll try to

keep it a bit shorter. Well, I'm a mechanical engineer by background with a leaning, always towards business. What you design also has to work economically somewhere and be sellable. That's one of the driving forces. Another topic is sustainability. Earlier, before I wanted to become a mechanical engineer, I actually felt drawn to farming. So a very strong connection to nature, but

also to the question: How do we treat nature? I've always engaged with that. I didn't become a farmer in the end, but a mechanical engineer. Nevertheless, this topic of circularity – how do we handle our resources? How can we develop what's around people, but without squeezing the resources out – has occupied me. And those are really two sides of the coin that have crystallised over recent years around the topic of mobility and batteries, in my

professorship as well. And that's really what describes me quite well. I am pragmatic. I'm not a theorist who thinks about what could theoretically be done and then leaves it at that, but I also want what I think about to actually become reality. And I fight for that. And I commit myself to that. That's how StreetScooter came about, for example – this electric delivery vehicle for Deutsche Post – from an idea: How can we make deliveries sustainable? Then

30,000 vehicles actually emerged that really do that. And that's the motivation and goal. Absolutely, yes. Yes, fascinating. Maybe going back a bit: What took you from mechanical engineer to professor? How did that come about? Well, I did my doctorate at the machine tool laboratory, which also saw the transformation coming to some extent. It's an institute that's very automotive-heavy and has that focus. And during my doctorate I witnessed what

professors also have in terms of creative freedom, which of course you have to use responsibly, but which you do have. That means you can push things forward, generate ideas and make something out of them. And that really fascinated me and hooked me. I found that really, really cool, I have to say. Then I went into industry first, but quite quickly the offer came: Hey, would you be interested in combining a vehicle topic with a professorship? Meaning the StreetScooter topic. And I found that

really powerful. I said, yes, great – this creative space, but directed towards a topic, towards a project. And that's how I marched towards a professorship, and what came out is what came out: that we gradually built up a chair just for this topic and made it strong and large. Interesting. So the StreetScooter project was really also the beginning of the professorship. Yes, it's important to me – I'm not someone who

wants to just remain narcissistically in research and ultimately be satisfied with that, but I always want this transfer. Meaning that what you research, something comes out of it. It's called impact, that something results from it. And I found that aspect of the StreetScooter example brilliant. It was about investigating once: In the last mile, does electrification make sense? That was part of the research topic. And the other part was ultimately: How can I develop faster? And especially that is

in my view still a core issue. We in Germany are far, far too slow and sluggish. Everything takes forever. And that doesn't just matter in the sustainability area. Many people think that's somehow a pet peeve of someone against the sustainability topic. It's like that everywhere. So no matter what it's about, it takes time with us. And we have to break that open again. So, how can we get to a point where we really do things quickly and not have "Germany speed" be a

joke because it's so slow. Foreigners always tell me: Mr Kampker, when I work with you, please not at Germany speed, but at China speed. And that really annoys me enormously that I have to hear that. And I want to change that again. And that actually wasn't the core issue when we did StreetScooter, in the sense that I saw it as a big problem in Germany – that was

15 years ago when we started with it. But it's really crystallised that this is increasingly one of our core problems, that we still have good ideas. You have to say that. Germany isn't lacking in ideas, but in implementation and above all in the speed of implementation. And that's tripping us up more and more often and actually makes our previous strengths obsolete. We urgently need to break that open again. Yes, there

I completely agree with you. And how do you envision that? Or do you also have approaches for how to tackle these cultural realities? I think first of all it's an issue that needs to be accepted. That we don't go around being arrogant or condescending, saying: We are the benchmark that the world follows. The first thing is acknowledging it. That's what I can advocate for right now. But there's still

surprisingly much resistance to that. Like: On the speed issue it's still OK. Everyone says: Yes, yes, it could go faster. But when you then say, OK, what needs to be done? You have to cut bureaucracy – but not just on the public side, also within companies. It's by no means true that the problem is only the state; when I go into corporations or something like that, I also find bureaucracy has been built up just the same, or in some other institutions. So the first thing is

the acknowledgement, and the second thing is that you really have the courage to actually break things open. Because the rules – and this must also be said – they're not evil or handed down from heaven; they've been built up more and more over time. To put it bluntly: When I talk about fire safety, it certainly makes sense if I identify a hazard somewhere that I then write down a rule saying, not like this, please do it differently. That

means each individual rule does somehow make sense – but it still leads to the point where I can't really do anything anymore. But that doesn't mean now, and that's why it's not so simple: Everything can just burn down. Of course not. Of course we don't want to endanger people, but you still have to approach it a bit more radically and streamline things. When people are endangered, that's obviously a no-go. But there are many other areas where I'm not talking about life and death when I have rules.

And there I think it makes more sense to really cut something away once and then rebuild it. Especially with new topics. And that extends to things that really have nothing to do with electromobility. That's why I say it's actually not just a sustainability issue – brake-by-wire or something like that. That we say it's a safety issue that we still have something completely simplified and mechanical somewhere that

somehow slips through in the end. And now to take this step – at first people say, something could happen, it could be unsafe. That's why we then find it very difficult. But then the train leaves again. We always look at the risks and not enough at the opportunities. And that's also a kind of risk. The European precautionary principle, that we want to solve everything before we even start – my concrete approach there is to say: No, we must

also just do things, try them out. Then I can still adjust later if they get big enough. But I simply have to take certain risks and bear them – as a society, as an individual person. We need more willingness to take risks there again. And do you also see – this is a big topic, especially bureaucracy reduction too. And as you already say, also the last "Lage der Nation", if you heard it – that was also a big topic, to what extent you minimize risk and at the same time

don't create new risks when you cut all the bureaucracy. Do you see good approaches, especially in Europe, that work better than perhaps in Germany or in the USA? In Europe unfortunately not so far. We've developed this claim in Europe that we're right and others should follow us. And I think we simply have to look – in this case actually – at what the USA and China are doing. In the discussion now definitely not that we should just

copy everything exactly somehow. But there are some things. It's not all bad and evil and to be rejected, what's happening elsewhere in the end. And these approaches that now exist in the USA, to really say radically: Look, if you make a new law, you have to abolish many things – I actually find that quite charming. Because of course it leads to discussions and some will be affected. But exactly this endurance and these discussions we need.

Or in China, where they say: I'll do this on a large scale, try out different approaches in different regions and then see what works best and what doesn't. Of course we can't do it with such brutality and at the expense of people. But these approaches are, I think, quite interesting. Where you say, OK, I carve out certain things and then implement them. So I would be happy, for example, if we could establish something like, analogous to the

economic zone, an innovation zone for example in Germany, or several, where not a single innovation, but bundled what's possible. For example here around the brown coal pits, where new settlements are emerging anyway, that we then say: there we have the freedom, slightly different rules apply there. I would immediately move there with my family and live there too. And that's something completely different from a prototype, or the way we've seen it so far, that we have in some city once a

just putting up a few charging stations and saying this is a field trial. Rather, it's about bringing together the maximum of everything we can think of, innovations aligned with each other, really into implementation. And I believe that could significantly shorten societal discussions by actually seeing what happens, how we as people react to it, whether we accept it, whether we like it, whether it fits into market-economy processes. And I believe we need such ideas now and must really implement them. So I always come back to

this: better to do something wrong than ultimately have standstill. And that's what we're afraid of. And then everyone comes running with all kinds of horror scenarios about what could happen. That's why I'm involved. This innovation zone shouldn't be all of Germany or all of Europe, but rather we should have defined areas for such experiments. But I believe we really need to get into a doing mode and also give these free spaces again, otherwise we strangle ourselves and are actually perfected slowness.

And a good example of also-doing, or how to bring cool innovation projects into practice, is also the RWTH Aachen ecosystem. Could you perhaps also talk about what you think RWTH Aachen does better than others, which then also leads to launching such large projects as the Streetscooter? Yes, I don't want to judge whether it's better or worse. It's definitely a good approach that

they place value on there being a transfer. As far as I can see, others recognise this too. But what does that include? It naturally includes having very different capabilities at RWTH that are meaningfully combined with each other. A simple example with Streetscooter was that there was actually very little collaboration beforehand between electrical engineers and mechanical engineers, where you'd now say, they're both engineers, should actually be very close together. But in such a project really just bundling these competencies and pulling

together – and much more of that needs to happen. This is actually supported through so-called profile areas at RWTH, ensuring you don't just stay in your faculty, in your subject area, but look at how other knowledge areas can help. Then I also have other networks, other partners from industry who jointly drive topics forward. And this is actually the case with many topics, that it's no longer just one subject area that

I simply change and then it runs better. With e-mobility I needed charging infrastructure, I suddenly needed the grids. So where does the electricity even come from? Previously petrol came from the pump. Now I have to suddenly bring together a different infrastructure that exists in this form, but not for this purpose, not for this purpose. Such a huge advantage at RWTH is that regardless of what topic you have, there's ultimately

a contact person you can talk to, who can bring in their network again. And I believe that's a strength: the will for transfer, the diversity we ultimately have thematically, and with that then the practical relevance. And that's how things like Streetscooter emerge and from that also further spin-offs. This too is being pushed more and more. At least I always found Munich excellent too, for example, when it comes to spin-offs, support, financing. There

RWTH has caught up very, very strongly and is now also in the top position. And I believe the important thing now is that we mutually look at what other universities do well – and everyone please copy that. And then we all run in similar directions, namely into implementation, so that something really comes out of what we research. And that's one of the problems we have in Germany – or challenges we massively have in Germany – that up to this point where there are results in the sense

of IP, patents and so on, we're actually among the leaders worldwide, but not in implementation. That means not enough value creation ultimately outside. Therefore I can only advocate that we all set out to do this better, to optimise it. And RWTH is certainly at the forefront there. But even there we can still do a lot. But that's recognised, and that's also good. And the competition, I see it less within Germany.

but rather it's a few thousand kilometres away to the east and west. Yes, where we really have to say, they all do a very good job in terms of results. And we must measure ourselves against that. We should go different ways, but we still have to measure ourselves somehow by the result, by this transfer and by the output. And we have to get into that. And at RWTH, however, it's also a lot of fun to go exactly in this direction. Yes, and speaking of implementation:

Do bring us along a bit. What were the milestones of Streetscooter? So, also for the listeners: this was one of the biggest projects, also very early in e-mobility history, if you like. That they showed such courage and also launched such a project. You weren't there the whole time. Maybe you can – maybe you're still following it now, where you're not

there anymore. But can you go over again what the highlights were, or even very big challenges that you had, and how you dealt with them? So, there were definitely lots of challenges. I think what's important is: it actually started with the vision. I just mentioned it briefly – developing quickly with few resources. And then we looked for an example where that would work, but also where

a lot of people would be interested, where you could also have a say. And that's how we ultimately arrived at the topic of vehicles and said, that's a so-called use case you can apply this to. But it's also important that we bring on board partners who can industrialize something like this, because otherwise I'm stuck in a lab somewhere – you can always talk a lot and research a lot. So it was already embedded there: the vision, something should come of this. And then the first milestone. Sure, the

vision was that something should come of it, but then we set ourselves clear goals. And the first was that we would be able to present a working vehicle at an IAA, the automotive exhibition, one that would particularly be supported by medium-sized partners, by the supplier industry. That was an interim goal. And initially we only thought as far as that. Then it was very successful. After all – back then Angela Merkel was Chancellor – she also came

to our stand there. And that generated a certain amount of attention. Why do I point that out? Because of course things like that also play a role: do good and talk about it. If we keep everything to ourselves and don't talk about it, no one can notice it and say: "Hey, that's interesting for me." And through that attention, Deutsche Post became aware of us. Jürgen Gerdes said: "Hey, that's an interesting thing. Couldn't you make me a

delivery vehicle along those lines?" And that's how what many people talk about today, the Streetscooter, was born. We then said: "Absolutely." We'd previously talked about passenger cars, yes, small vehicles, and said very quickly: "Hey, this is a real opportunity for what we have as an idea – namely developing quickly with few resources – to actually be implemented, together with Deutsche Post." And we seized that opportunity. So it was actually also an adaptation from the original plan to make a small car, to seize that

opportunity. And I think that's also important to understand. In hindsight, people always look at the successful cases and say: "Yes, of course, it was brilliantly planned." In the vast majority of cases it's not like that at all. That is, a whole lot of willingness to adapt is also part of it. And when you realize you're running into a wall, that you sometimes go around the side and look for a different path to how you ultimately move forward. The vision – again – remained the same:

to develop quickly with few resources and demonstrate that something like that works. But the path there was then also marked by many detours and partly also by luck, I have to say. So the fact that Deutsche Post became aware of us was a stroke of luck in my opinion. That's not a given either. Of course you put in hard work and effort and competence, but it also always comes down to the important and right decisions. And then came each stage: the first

50, the first 100, the first 1000 cars. And every time there were of course bottlenecks, problems, challenges. It was also often tight, making do with the resources we had. But then it came down to a team that stuck together very, very strongly and also had the absolute will to get things done, to pull together and really show commitment. And that's another important point too, this performance principle. I think we also need to talk about that more again, that it's

not just about how I somehow fulfill myself and for myself – me, me, me – but in a team, in a 'we', to look at: having a common goal, committing to it, driving it forward, not always seeing yourself first and foremost, but also for such a vision – not sacrificing yourself, but committing yourself and delivering performance, even beyond the normal level. That was also a success criterion which I believe, very, very often in the past in Germany

was the case, that people, individuals and their teams – often people only talk about the individual person, but behind that in almost all cases there's actually a team performance – that you're capable of achieving very, very much and thus also sending a positive message. If we really want something as people in our country, then we can achieve a hell of a lot, even if the framework conditions aren't the best. Yes, also the whole economic miracle in Germany, which people talk about so often. After the

Second World War. What prospects and starting situations did we have then? They were far from positive. People had basically brought shame upon themselves. Everything was destroyed, everything lay in ruins. There was also a lack of trained people. And yet this will to want to rebuild something led to us having a very, very good time for many years and, yes, some speak of a miracle ultimately. And therefore today too: if we at Streetscooter had moaned about everything, always just about what doesn't fit. And

how terrible and awful the framework conditions are. Then I don't think we would have built 30,000 vehicles either. And so a few things come together. So my mindset: where do I want to go, deliver real competence and performance and see what you can make of the current situation. And when things go left or right, also be adaptable and agile, don't let yourself get frustrated and approach the task with a certain humility. Yes, exciting. And how was it for you personally

then – or perhaps briefly about the team: who else was around you? I know that Professor Schuh is also very active in that direction at RWTH Aachen. Maybe you can go into that again – about the team and how you closed out StreetScooter and what came after. Yes, exactly. So team – of course. First at professor level: you just mentioned Günter Schuh, he was one of the idea generators

as well. He ultimately continued developing in the direction of passenger cars. But of course he also ensured that this environment and this opportunity existed at all. You have to say that clearly: an established personality here in the RWTH environment who clearly made this chance possible. So you need that too, just like a Jürgen Gerdes on the Post side. It's also always about the framework conditions, that people believe in it who also have a certain influence

and can therefore cover your back. But there were also – as I already said – colleagues from electrical engineering, for example a Dirk Uwe Sauer, who brought in his expertise par excellence, and many more at the professor level. But then also those who really did the daily work, like CTO Fabian Schmidt – competence carriers who got the job done day by day – or in the production area Tobias Reil. So very, very

many who formed this team together with me, where you simply developed great loyalty and a willingness to endure hardship, so that you can walk this path. So we're back to the framework conditions in the sense of: also letting a crew just get on with it. Not in a helicopter way the whole time: no, you can't do that, no, leave that, no, not that now. But rather saying: I'm entrusting resources to a group of people, I have high expectations, something has to come of it. Freedom obligates

on the other hand. We all enjoy freedom, but then we have to use it properly. And that was ultimately given there. I'm a type who can do 80% well. So I can initiate well, configure up to a certain point and drive things forward. The perfection – yes, which in Germany is sometimes overvalued – over 100% is also good, so you shouldn't be much below that

of course. That's what doesn't suit me: such industrialisation, really reaching mass production, is of course a completely different game. And you shouldn't overestimate yourself and think, even as a start-up – this is often in people who found something: they then have one success or another and eventually become megalomaniacal and believe they can do everything. There I think it's

important to recognise the point yourself where you say: OK, that's not my expertise now, and I have to get out and make room for others ultimately. That's what I did. I said, I'm going back to what I can transfer anew. That's my ability I think – I enjoy that, I'm good at that – to do that again. And you have to be able to let things go. And that

was a very concrete, conscious decision to let go of StreetScooter and go back to the place where new ideas can be generated and you can actually transfer and push the next things forward again. And for understanding too: at the beginning there were already OEMs with vans, however they actually didn't want to make them electric. That was the big problem for the Post and others who wanted sustainability in everyday life, but the OEMs that you

know couldn't offer that yet, right. Exactly. So at that time you have to see that in 2010-2011 – first of all the financial crisis had just passed. So actually everything was going down rather. That was a difficult environment. And on the other hand, e-mobility was by no means something that was already highly praised, but there was a discussion: Does that even make sense? Do we even want that? Exactly. And in the van segment there was actually no decent offer, no electrified offer. And

on the other hand there was no van tailored to delivery in structure, in design. You have to realise that I get in and out several hundred times a day when I deliver mail and parcels. That was combined delivery, so letters and parcels together. That's why the vehicle is also relatively small. It's not a parcel delivery vehicle, but one where I deliver letters and parcels together. That's why it's relatively small. And many always say,

it's not a parcel vehicle at all, it's much too small for that – exactly, it's made for this purpose. And within this specification I also need ergonomics for getting in and out, for taking out the parcels, because many people also deliver dog food or something like that. Then such a bag, so a parcel, weighs accordingly. I have to get that in and out without ruining my back. And so various things came together alongside sustainability as an overall concept, so that I really have a tool

designed for this Deutsche Post process, ultimately as the result. And to this day there isn't anything that's adequate. There are now electrified vehicles, but this tool that brings together all these characteristics – for this very specific case, one must also say. It's not a product that can be used for everyone; rather, it's a pointed product, tailored to a specific use case. And that didn't exist and still doesn't exist today, except for the Streetscooter itself.

And how do you view the market in general? Rivian made that big deal with Amazon – 100,000 vans by 2030, I believe. And Streetscooter – I don't know where things stand now, but unfortunately it didn't scale the way one might have hoped from a German perspective, to make a real Tesla story out of Streetscooter. There's certainly enough market

beyond Deutsche Post. Do you have thoughts on that, how it is, how you would have wished it to be, or how the market will develop? Yes, the question ultimately is: if I go into the mass market, I can't tailor the product so precisely; I then have to make compromises, as with other vehicles – for tradespeople, for others – so that I ultimately position it more broadly. And with

the Streetscooter product, the path taken was to tailor it very sharply to the use case. What does now exist are electrified vans. And it's part of the success that they actually followed relatively quickly as the first movers. That is, I still see it from the university perspective as a success that we initiated a topic that was then picked up. It's true, we didn't succeed in ultimately turning it into a company that's

comparable to Tesla or something like that – but the question is also whether that was the ambition or even possible in such a van segment, right? Well, I think we could discuss at length now: could have, would have, if only. Sure, one can always do things better. But again: this initiation, that the last mile is electrifiable – no one can take that success away from us, in the truest sense of the word. And that was actually also the goal, that we succeeded

in developing something, producing it in series, and thereby providing proof. And then it was also in other hands. And I think it's now pointless to discuss how it could have been done differently. There are many opinions, and I don't see the added value of discussing that in hindsight, right. A few years earlier – then it was worth discussing. Now I think it's important to draw lessons from it. Namely,

we really need to look at how Germany can succeed in making things truly big. That we don't just get to a certain point, but say: what is the right way to scale an idea? That's – Streetscooter is one example of that – but there are unfortunately many other things where these ideas or what emerged are essentially bought out, go abroad, and are scaled there. And I think we need to

improve our structures again. These are investment funds and such topics – that we tackle this scaling and also put big money into big things in certain areas. We still have room for improvement as an economy there. Yes. And the project still exists. The Streetscooters are still in operation. Just that the vehicles aren't so easy to replace, which actually speaks to the fact that they're sensible and good products. If they were replaceable, many more would have already been

taken out of the fleet again. Exactly. And we'll come back to the topic of charging. Before we do that, once more: You also have a few organisations that we could perhaps mention here. You have various roles that might also be interesting to briefly highlight. You mentioned a keyword there: We need capital. You've also moved a bit in the investor scene, I believe.

What's missing in your opinion for us to have enough capital to scale such large projects? Yes, exactly. So what I learned myself – we've also accompanied many start-ups and spin-offs – is that the teams then always spend a lot, a lot of time acquiring money, and aren't really advancing the idea anymore. To some extent, that's naturally the case: If I want external money, I naturally have to commit to that and take care of it.

But it's in my opinion incomparably more difficult compared to the USA, for example. And that's exacerbated by the fact that we often, from our history, from the good mechanical and plant engineering we have, do hardware-based things. And everyone now thinks software is great. That's also extremely important – please don't misunderstand me. Of course it's a driver to be good in these areas and to engage with them. But

the combination of software and hardware can still be a unique selling point that we would have. But then hardware comes into play. Hardware costs, meaning I have a high risk and often also relatively lower return opportunities, at least at the beginning. And I think we need to find ways. What we have as a unique position – this interplay of tool-making, mechanical and plant engineering, process know-how – to combine that with the new topics: digitalisation, AI and so on, so the

to really bring that in properly, including the know-how. But then we could generate advantages. And for that we also need funds, in part perhaps with state or semi-state participation, which also use the strengths that we happen to have and then steer and intervene to a certain extent in a positive way in order to keep the location strong. I believe it needs to go in that direction, and I'll come back once more to my innovation zones. That means

there is a set of instruments that I don't think we fully have yet, which must work together so that you can successfully rebuild things. So, and we simply don't have – or not to a great extent – raw materials in Germany. That means we have to rely on other things. And everyone somehow talks about 'ecosystem'. And this set of tools to bring such an ecosystem to life, we also need to

sharpen and work on that. You've also written 'Engineers Save the World' and the book 'Desire for the Future'. Perhaps you can say a few words about that and above all outline topics that are currently preoccupying you and that might still be worth mentioning for the listeners. Yes, very gladly. So, how did the whole thing come about? 'Engineers Save the Earth' sounds provocative at first, like: What does he think of himself now? It's important: How did it

come about? I've repeatedly experienced that in very many conversations everyone always points at others. Yes, let them stop cutting down the rainforest in Brazil first before we do anything. The big tankers – oh, what they all burn, me with my little car. Or the corporations should first – before I as a medium-sized business. It's always the others. And if I don't ski, the skiers should stop skiing. And if I ski, it's the golfers. It's always someone else

who should somehow do something, and never myself. I'm an engineer and I asked myself: Has my engineering profession contributed enough in the past to ensure we have a good, liveable world? We contributed a lot to it – I mean my predecessors. A lot of good has come about, but also bad. And I believe, not enough. And that effect – looking at your own nose, questioning yourself: What can I contribute to ensure there's a good future? – that's how 'Engineers Save the Earth' came about.

And hopefully it will soon say 'People Save the Earth' at some point. That means: How do we preserve our basis for life? That's what it's about. And the claim is: Everyone please start with themselves and don't point at others. That's how the title came about, and it's therefore a self-commitment. So first of all the call: Think about it. I'm thinking as an engineer. What is my role? Don't I have to get involved much more in politics and direction too – so no longer just executing? Someone says: I have a

problem, dear engineer, solve that. But also to ask: Do I want to solve this problem? Do I want to solve it the way my client tells me? Or do I also want to have a say and set a direction? So also a philosophy and a goal. I think we engineers should contribute, also in the area that we have a say about the direction – not alone, but have a say, contribute, especially because we should also know: What can I cause or achieve with technology? And thereby provide this

direction, that's ultimately how this association – a non-profit association – came about. But it also goes beyond just actually doing and making something. And I described that in the book 'Desire for the Future'. How can something like that succeed? And I did that based on many examples that fit together, that interlock into an overall picture. That would be something for an innovation zone: from the larvae of the soldier fly to battery recycling to cable car, really thinking it through together. And these are all things. And now comes the positive part:

that we already have. Of course you can always continue researching, and we should do that too, and continue working and improving. But there's really no excuse for us not to implement what we already have available in terms of technology right now and thereby actually solve a large part of the problems we have. And why do I desire the future? Of course there are very, very many things you can look at now. What's not going well in the world right now? What is perhaps also

worse than five years ago. On the other hand, if we look into human history, I'm still very, very grateful that I live in the current time. These are the degrees of freedom I have. And for me that's an obligation to use them as meaningfully as possible – others will have to judge at some point whether I've done well or not. And in that sense I desire to shape my future. And I also have the claim and the will to do so.

Otherwise others will do it for me. If I don't actively say I'm working on the future and I want to help decide the direction, then I also have to contribute. Not just demand, not just demonstrate, but really roll up my sleeves and do something. And you can see when you look into the book that these aren't visions from some crazy person, but there are always persons, people behind it who really do and make what is described there. And that is

a great message. These people exist. We need to move more in this direction. We need to shape our future, otherwise others will do it for us. And I don't know if we want that. The freedom we have – the creativity that comes from it – we need to make something of that. That's the foundation that we have – in contrast to other forms of government, other systems – that we have the freedom to use our brains up there the way we imagine it. And from that

we need to make something. Not just for ourselves, but for society – also for ourselves. You don't have to sacrifice yourself and break yourself down. But I do believe that everything that's been given to me personally also obligates me to give something back. And I believe that applies to many other people, especially in Germany. And we should get to work and not complain. Yes, totally sensible. One thing that's been

really on my mind lately is: How do we manage to reach even the cynical people – or the people who no longer see all the problems as challenges that can be solved with difficult solutions, but who find simple messages and simple solutions very appealing – to win them over from people like Trump or the AfD? Parties that are then also being elected more and more. That seems to be a trend in recent years. How do you think we can reach those people so that

we have more enthusiasm for the future and that we don't view the challenges so cynically, but instead draw strength from the past and from progress? Well, I think the first step is that we all take each other seriously and don't continue working to divide ourselves into camps – some are the good ones and others are the bad ones. From my life experience, I consider that a path that always leads further into a dead end. And it doesn't matter at all there

who's right or who's wrong. That destroys a society. That means we should all sit down and first take our counterpart seriously. And when someone has concerns, I always take them seriously. I take that seriously with my employees. I take that seriously in my family and don't tell my child either: "That worry you have there, that's complete nonsense, don't make such a fuss." I have to take it seriously and then think together about

how do we get out of this situation. That's point one. And it only works together. That we now position ourselves and think there's only a small elite of people who can think, and the others are all too stupid – with that we're leading democracy itself ad absurdum. That means I have many smart people around me. And I first accept that everyone can also contribute something

to it. And I take that seriously. I find that a very, very important thing. And then we have to convince through our own example that we take such things seriously and bring each other along. And by that I don't mean that everything is fine and I just pat everyone on the back. I also make demands and also say – as I just said: freedom also obligates. And I tell everyone in my environment, everyone I reach somehow: Stop this

complaining, get to work. I'm not saying everything is good and keep going and we'll manage it somehow. We have to fight. I think we have a good chance. I always see it like this: nowadays I don't play football very often anymore, but I used to do it very intensively. And whenever I went onto that field, regardless of whether I already knew there was an overpowering opponent or not, I had the will to win with my team. I went onto the field to

win. I never went onto the field with the thought: we're going to lose anyway, it's all terrible. That's a mindset and an attitude. And I believe that we in Germany have a lot on our plate, that we can achieve a lot. And that's also my message. We should use our freedom and must never go so far as to say I'll fight anti-democratic currents with anti-democratic means. Such things are also devil's work. We should keep our hands off that. And I'm

certain that good arguments are heard even in today's times and find majorities, when we also show with these good arguments that we're serious about it, that we're achieving good goals with it and that we can also create a livable future with it, without fear. And that also exists in all directions. Fear of climate catastrophe is also a fear that's being stirred up and puts people in fear – from whatever direction and corner that may come. They always act strangely, because fear up there

switches us off. When I'm afraid – yes, I notice it in myself too – when I'm afraid of something, then you don't always react in the most sensible way, not objectively, but then I try to save myself. And that's not good. Here too you can look into the history of humanity: nothing good ultimately comes from that. However, once again: you have to take fears seriously for precisely that reason and mustn't negate them and say you're not allowed to talk about that. That's

nonsense. You're just too stupid, you just have to listen more carefully, then you'll understand what I mean. That's not at all what I mean. And I believe we all need to readjust ourselves in our environment and approach our environment with great openness, not let anyone slip away, but also not think that we know everything ourselves and the others who are stupid, to whom I have to explain everything five times. I've also learned so much again in recent years – about Corona and

or anything else – taking different perspectives on topics seriously. I keep learning, and I also revise opinions that I sometimes held for many years. My best example is always with children. I now have five children. When I didn't have children yet, I was always quick to give someone advice. Oh, these children here, they're so cheeky, you need to be a bit firmer, you need to do this. That's incredibly embarrassing to me today, after experiencing

what children are really like, with patience and everything else, how you do it. Today I have to say I apologize if I spread my two cents on anyone's bread with completely unqualified opinions. But I thought they were qualified – I was fully convinced. And I believe that with this self-awareness, everyone should come down from their high horse, disarm a bit from the idea that they are the good ones, because every other side always says we are the good ones,

the others are the bad ones. Let's put that aside. Of course there is good and evil, I don't want to downplay that now. But still, I believe that a very, very large proportion of people living in Germany – and I include everyone in that – are reasonable people you can talk to. And that's the only way democracy can function. And that's what we should fight for and find as much common ground as possible. Yes, great. Thanks for that. And now let's dream a bit about this future vision of energy and e-mobility that

you have – certainly part of the enthusiasm for the future. How do you see it? What will the energy system of the future be, in Germany or in the world, and in electromobility – how do you see it developing? And what are especially the opportunities that the people who are skeptical about these topics – the energy transition has almost been turned negative, it feels like in recent years,

when it was always so positively connotated. Yes, I believe it's important that we – as a state we should of course provide direction, but within that direction I believe that a social market economy is the one that will introduce the right technologies that achieve these goals – so control as little as possible, but create the framework conditions so that it goes in the right direction. And then I do believe that implementing solar power, wind is feasible and makes sense. We should just, when we now

come – we come from an industry that needs a lot of energy, we as residents need a lot of energy, and the energy so far hasn't mainly come from Germany, but also through petroleum and many other things from elsewhere. Why do we now suddenly want at all costs not only to use and store renewable energy, but it all has to happen in Germany too? And I think that's a big mistake, to approach it that way. Of course, where it makes sense – I also have a solar system on my

roof, that's good too. But there are of course regions in the world where you can use sun highly efficiently, where it basically always shines. If I go a bit further south and wherever there's wind and so on and so forth, then of course I have to convert it into hydrogen or ammonia. Those ships already exist. And ultimately I'm also importing energy. That means, in my opinion, we won't get around the topic of hydrogen and intermediate storage, even if it's

of course not the most efficient as an individual process. But when I look at the global economy and how much energy we need, I think we can't avoid it. And why should we anyway? From my perspective, that's a good approach to convert the economy that way, but also to continue conducting global trade, taking in imports. You don't have to do it from one country and make yourself dependent on exactly one region again. That's what's good. Sun and wind exist

not just in one country, but in very many. Unlike petroleum, which also exists in many countries, but is of course somewhat dedicated to specific locations. That means we could, I believe, move in that direction. And that's also what I envision and my vision. A bit away from this overly local thinking. I also say: what can be produced locally, we should also do locally, because logistics is also always resource-intensive

and also wastes resources. But not at all costs, rather look with moderation: How can I develop the market economy into a circular market economy? And I also have to get into the products again. At the moment we're always trying to add this environmental topic on top. We have a linear process, then try to saddle it on top, and that's why it always gets more expensive. What if we rethink products so that we're really repairable from the start and so on and so forth. I believe, then according to theory it actually has to

be that if I think in cycles, I'm more efficient. Let's take the topic of food. So let's briefly step outside electromobility: 40% of what is produced in the fields – this isn't just in Germany, but also in Africa – is wasted. 40%, not 4%, 40% of all food. What enormous potential we have that we can ultimately tap through efficiency. If we also produce things closer together, appreciate it more directly. And

that also applies to energy: valuing energy, being mindful of it, and so on. And I think that's a mindset that isn't necessarily defined by sacrifice, but rather asks: How can I increase the productivity of systems faster than resource consumption? And if I can get that in balance, I can still accept growth, I can accept a market economy, and still achieve the goal of not further exploiting and destroying the earth, but moving in a direction that allows us to live sustainably. And once more

just a very quick rapid-fire question: Do you see it being 100% sun and wind for electricity generation? Well, with 100% – I'd always be careful about making anything an absolute standard. There will always be other things too. Hydropower is also still a topic, for example. And there will also be things where I have bio-based fuels for specific purposes: tankers, aircraft. That means there will also still be a combustion engine, and I can also burn hydrogen in a combustion engine. That means

there will still be different topics there. But a very, very large share – and that makes sense – will ultimately come from these energy sources. And I think that's sensible. And electric mobility will be 100% – apart from the two or three examples you mentioned – for mobility? Yes, well, I think an electric motor will drive a significant share in the end. But I just mentioned the hydrogen combustion engine, for example. For certain applications I think that's also sensible and relevant, even if

I don't personally advocate for it. But I don't have to think everything is bad that I don't do myself. I find that a bit presumptuous. And I think competition will decide that too. The goal is clear: We want to move toward more sustainability. And I'm completely open about that. I'm driving forward the topics of fuel cells and batteries. I believe that will represent a significant, sensible share of transport and mobility. And now I have to work on making sure that

actually becomes the case. And why should I deny others their right to exist? That's not my job. And I think – as I said – I would find that arrogant. Let's see through competition where the percentage points end up. I'm very confident that the topics I'm personally driving forward will be very, very successful, because they are highly efficient, because they are sensible technologies. But my ambition isn't to displace or push aside everything. And if

a fleet operator is listening now: What have you learned about building an electric fleet, and particularly about charging? What insights or tips can you give a fleet manager who is currently in the process or just starting out? Well, especially when I'm talking about commercial fleets, it's very, very important that I really bring along those who drive the vehicles with proper introduction and training. We've had the experience everywhere: It is indeed different. I have to

think a bit differently. It's not worse, not better, but I have to do it differently. And if I try to transfer my previous behaviour one-to-one, then it simply can't work well. That means the topic of training – these don't have to be months-long training sessions, but to the point – explaining to people in one or two hours what makes sense: that I can use regeneration and so on, that I'll have less brake wear, that I have to pay attention to charging. I don't have to

drive to the petrol station anymore, but I do have to plug in the cable. And everywhere we've done that, driver satisfaction has been extremely high, and it's gone really excellently. In all places where we haven't done that, it hasn't gone well. That means I tell every fleet operator: That's a recipe for success. I have to bring the drivers along – not in the sense that I talk at them and say this is much better, but by explaining how to do it so it works better

. And conveying that knowledge to people – then my experience is that many say: "Hey, great, I can understand that, it's quickly enjoyable too, it's pleasant driving. And why shouldn't I adopt that then?" So not along the lines of because it's my ideology now and you have to like it because we're good people. It has nothing to do with that, but I have to engage them: What are the conveniences, alongside what's more effort? What could the conveniences be?

I have to present that properly, prepare it and communicate honestly and openly. And what were the biggest challenges with electrification at the depot – or perhaps, I don't know if they all always had depots with you at Streetscooter – that you encountered, and also opportunities you see with charging, keyword smart charging? Yes, exactly this topic of charging infrastructure and therefore also intelligent control – that had to be thought through sensibly,

so that you ultimately integrate and accommodate it. Because drilling open connections, along the lines of "I simply need more power", that's very expensive. That means you have to look at what connections are available at the depots. How can I use them sensibly? Can I buffer something? Can I stagger the charging times? And I have to bring a certain intelligence into it. That was crucial. That means you always had to do that, and

You would definitely recommend it to everyone, even right at the beginning, to take that into account. And on the topic of bidirectional charging: do you see a lot of potential there in the future? Yes, fundamentally I do. Using the batteries, which are expensive and are in the vehicles, to help stabilise the grids – I think that's a good thing. We should dial down the regulation a bit and

simply enable more, so that we can see what works and what doesn't. Yes, regulation plays an important role in that direction. And perhaps aimed more at startup entrepreneurs: what would you recommend to them, based on your experience with Streetscooter but also otherwise as an investor and with other ventures you've been involved in, particularly in Germany? What would you say are the key tips, or something that you consider

essential that many get wrong?

Yes, that's difficult. I think what many get wrong is that they don't try to understand the customer who is supposed to buy it later. On the one hand, it's good if you're enthusiastic about your product. But I think the important thing is always that I approach it in a market-oriented way. And many get that wrong. They talk a lot and don't listen. And I think that's an important point: you have to listen. Does what

I'm offering there really fit the needs that exist? Or do I have to adapt something or do it completely differently? That's one thing. And the second thing we should all bear in mind: failure is part of founding a company. That means it's not a disgrace if something goes wrong or doesn't work out. The important thing is that you get back up and don't stay down, and then carry on. And a third thing is that many romanticise entrepreneurship and think they'll simply get filthy rich

and have an awesome life. That may be true, but in many cases it's hard work first and a feel for it. And everyone should think about it carefully. I encourage people to do it – choose that path, take a look at it. This isn't "keep your hands off it", quite the opposite. I think it's a great thing, it's incredibly fun. But you also have to have a certain affinity for it and be able to handle it. And it is extremely

very hard work and not the easiest way to get rich. Yes, I see it exactly the same way. And perhaps finally, are there topics or a message that you'd still like to share, or how people can best follow you and what you'd like to point out? Well, I'd be pleased if as many people as possible who have shaping the future as a topic, on the one hand

join the discussion, so influence us in this view, but then also roll up their sleeves and in their environment, those they recognise who are doing something there, that they also support them – and not list the hundred reasons why it's bound to fail, and then watch: "Haha, I told you it wouldn't work!" – but rather become active and help and support things to move forward, and indeed help others, not just themselves. Yes. That reminds me of my first experience in

the US, where "How can I help you?" is a phrase that's said often – partly as a platitude, but partly genuinely meant – and I think we can learn something from that too. In that spirit: how can people help you again, Achim? Perhaps there's a specific endeavour where you think, today or in the coming months, people could help you. Yes, I'd be delighted if, for example, the topics from the book "Zukunftslust", if

they are spread, if many people take a look at it and also give me feedback on it – definitely critical feedback too, what they think of it, whether they think these are good ideas. So I'm looking for constructive engagement. Yes, and I'd be delighted if there's even more feedback on that. There's a lot of feedback on it, many good discussions I have about it, and I'm pleased if it reaches even wider circles. Thank you very much. Keep that good

positive mood and continue spreading it. I wish you much success with that too, and thanks for taking the time. Let's definitely stay in touch. Very gladly, it was fun. I wish you all the best too. Thanks. Bye. That was a fascinating episode with Achim Kampker, professor at RWTH Aachen. I really took away a lot from it, particularly his entrepreneurial story, how Streetscooter came about and at the same time a professorship, that circumstance of how he actually wanted to become a farmer or rather mechanical engineer and

then did become one, and particularly those synergies between the different departments, how the Streetscooter story ultimately was and what the reason was that there were actually no events back then, and then that story with Angela Merkel, the DHL division or rather the champion there, and then those ups and downs in production, what an entrepreneur like him built up and then the problems with scaling. Nevertheless, how you learn from such a project, what makes an entrepreneur, and the keyword

resilience and helping and failure, how to deal with it – and then of course his view of the future and how to create a good, harmonious society, how to deal with conflicts and drive forward positive future shaping. There's this book he's written, "Zukunftslust", and above all the associations and other projects he's driving forward. So a very fascinating personality. I hope you could take a lot away from it. If you have comments, questions or suggestions, as always, feel free, then on

LinkedIn for example, and above all: follow and share with those you think this is definitely something for him or her. Take care.

Episode notes

Die Sonne scheint, die Stimmung ist bestens – genau das spiegelt diese Episode mit Prof. Achim Kampker wider. Er nimmt uns mit auf seine Reise vom naturverbundenen „Fast-Landwirt“ zum Maschinenbauer, Seriengründer und RWTH-Professor. Dabei zieht sich ein roter Faden durch alles, was ihn antreibt: nachhaltige Lösungen schnell und wirtschaftlich in die Praxis bringen. - Herkunft & Motivation: Warum er statt auf dem Bauernhof im Maschinenbau landete, wie sein Naturbezug sein Denken über Kreislaufwirtschaft prägt und weshalb Ideen erst dann zählen, wenn sie ressourcenschonend vermarktet werden können. - StreetScooter-Story: Von der ersten Vision auf der IAA bis zum DHL-Deal mit Angela Merkel am Stand – wir erfahren, wie Mut, interdisziplinäre Teams und ein bisschen Glück ein ikonisches E-Nutzfahrzeug hervorgebracht haben. - Skalierung & Resilienz: Was passiert, wenn Start-ups erwachsen werden, warum 80 % oft reichen, und weshalb Loslassen zum Unternehmertum dazugehört. - Tempo statt Bürokratie: Achim schildert, wie „Deutschland-Geschwindigkeit“ Innovation ausbremst, plädiert für Innovationszonen nach chinesischem oder US-Vorbild und fordert mehr gesellschaftliche Risikobereitschaft. - RWTH-Ökosystem: Welche Rolle Aachens Profilbereiche, Professoren-Netzwerke und industrielle Partner dabei spielen, Forschung in echte Wertschöpfung zu verwandeln. - Zukunftslust: Ein Blick in sein gleichnamiges Buch, seine Vereine und Projekte – und die Frage, wie wir Konflikte konstruktiv nutzen, um eine lebenswerte, harmonische Gesellschaft zu gestalten. Freut euch auf eine motivierende Mischung aus sonnigem Optimismus, schonungslosem Realismus und praxisnahen Insights rund um Elektromobilität, Batterie-Tech und die Kunst, aus Ideen Impact zu machen. Hinterlasst gern ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐, teilt die Folge mit Macher:innen aller Branchen und diskutiert weiter mit Achim und mir auf LinkedIn. Bis zur nächsten Episode!