Thread by @AukeHoekstra

No, EVs are NOT the new 'diesel scandal' waiting to happen @BjornLomborg & @DailyMailUK

I know I should not feed the trolls but I've completely had it with Bjorn Wormtongue Lomborg

I actually study this stuff so let me set the record straight (again)
🧵
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

There was a time I really liked Bjorn Lomborg.

But by now his relentless attempt to sabotage anything that helps us to transition away from fossil fuels reminds me of Wormtongue, the sycophant to power in lord of the rings.

The following may seem like a rant but I study electric vehicles (EVs) at the Eindhoven University of Technology.

Getting the science right is important to me (see my pinned thread) and Bjorn constant misleading irks me.

So let's dissect the deplorably article that the @DailyMailUK saw fit to publish. The rhetorical not so hidden message is: diesel turned out to be a bad idea, ergo electric vehicles will be a bad idea.

Nonsense of course, but that's the article's introduction.

And we are out of the gate with the first blatant hypocrisy.

These particles emitted by diesels are indeed very toxic. They are not emitted by electric vehicles (EVs).

So in the rest of the article we will forget that combustion engine particles are worse than EV particles.

EVs mostly use their motors to brake. This means few brake emissions. Bjorn knows this, but omits to mention it.
EVs do kick up (often less harmful) road dust but that's partly due to aerodynamics (and many EVs are more aerodynamic).

About weight: it might be interesting to know that batteries get lighter all the time and the electric drivetrain is lighter too.


Heavier EVs is a very temporary phenomenon.
Even for trucks.
researchgate.net/profile/Auke-H…

EVs use electricity and that is taxed just as much.
EVs simply need 4x less energy.
Sorry.

It does mean 'eyewatering' amounts of money can stay in the pockets of UK citizens instead of being exported to e.g. Saudi Arabia.

Money you could spend on schools etc.

One more remark about EV costs: EVs already have much lower running costs (less energy and repairs) and their retail price will soon be lower than that of combustion alternatives (without subsidies).
transportenvironment.org/discover/hitti…

Sorry Bjorn, but you are SO full of it.

Price: they are CHEAPER.

Range: I've done (Dutch) surveys among experienced EV owners and one thing is clear: a range of 350-500 km is fine for almost anybody. Then you charge away from home twice a month or so. It's not a problem.

Extra power: you save 4x as much energy!

Bjorn, Bjorn, Bjorn.

It was an opinion piece that argues we must "consolidate the gains from electrifying transport" (!) by taxing heavy cars.

But none of them have an automotive background which explains some jumping to conclusions. Let me explain.
nature.com/articles/d4158…

Lightweighting is good! Bikes are even better!

But the article only talks about fatalities in vehicle to vehicle collisions which is a small portion of accidents.

It's also pre-EV (from 2012). EVs are built very differently. So you can't generalize.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecot…

The second source (where they want to link EV weight to pedestrian casualties) doesn't mention electric vehicles and doesn't even mention weight!

For pedestrian safety it's more logical to look at braking distance and bonnet shape/material than weight.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecot…

So Bjorns claim that EVs kill more people is beyond what you can call cherry-picking.

Maybe you can imagine why I call him Bjorn Wormtongue.

That number is much to high of course.
But even if it was correct, the investment would last 20 years or so and be comparable what we spend on cars EVERY YEAR.

Oh and EVs will save us more than this because they use 4x less energy and require less maintenance.

By not listening to saboteurs like Bjorn Lomborg, we have made wind and solar already cheaper (see also below, in reaction to more specific misleading remarks on this topic).

Since EV motors are 4x more efficient the electricity increase is modest compared to the oil reduction.

They become CHEAPER Born. Say it! You can do it! On range: I've done many surveys and which 350-500 km range, experienced EV drivers say they have enough. Then they only use highway charging every two weeks or so.

"Huge bribes"?
Pricing in externalities is not bribery.

"Endure forced stops"?
Twittering 20 minutes extra, two times a month.
It's something most of us can endure .

Don't make the rhetoric TOO transparent Bjorn!

So we should not do it because some carmaker funded studies say it will not happen?

The EU says all new cars will be zero emission (and almost completely battery electric) by 2030.
Just saying.

Bjorn lying with statistics: counting only this decade (with EV adoption still low in many countries) and comparing with cumulative emissions to 2100.

But we can't afford to skip three quarters of one third of emissions (and growing).
Wormtongue anyone?cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/roa…

Most mining is problematic. We should do better.

But instead of 300 kg of recyclable battery materials, a combustion car needs about 30 tons of unrecyclable oil.

I've included some pictures of apparently problem free oil production for balance.

I happen to be an expert on EV CO2 emissions (see my pinned thread) and again Bjorn is full of it. EVs save circa 60% of emissions when sold now and 90% or so in 2040. On prices: see aforementioned BNEF report. Fortunately even politicians look more long term than Bjorn.

No whining column on EVs is complete without a reference to hydrogen. Don't mention it's more expensive and requires over 2x more energy.
I like it and think it can become climate neutral but it's oversold (see pictures).

Bjorn ends with a platitude intended to sound profound.
But as mentioned before, in the EU transport accounts for 32% of emissions (and rising) and road transport is three quarters of that.
Oh, and cars are the biggest oil users.
theicct.org/a-world-of-tho…

He has the gall to end with the request to invest more in green energy so it can become cheaper since "that would be a game-changer".
Well wind and solar already ARE gamechanger's cheaper than coal and gas, no thanks to saboteurs like Bjorn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tr…

So there you have it. Should we still call this legitimate discourse or should we call it out for what it is?

I tried to believe he's honest and just has different views but I can't anymore.

Thankfully less & less newspapers are willing to publish his misleading clickbait.
/end

I finally got Bjorn Lomborg to react!

Did I indeed make a series of laughably poor arguments?

Or is Bjorn not that bright?

You'll be the judge!

I can be brief (still 10 tweets: sorry) because he only reacts to three minor points.

I said "EVs use electricity that is taxed just as much but they need 4x less energy."

Bjorn argues they pay 2-4x less taxes.

Is it just me or is it obvious that:
4x less energy
of an energy source that is taxed the same
means you pay 4x less taxes?

I'll spell it out for Bjorn:

Assume you pay 10 cents tax per kWh for electricity and also 10 cents per kWh (=~100 cents per liter) for gasoline.

Now assume your EV uses 0.2 kWh/km but the ICE car uses 0.8 kWh/km (=~8l/100 km).

Then the EV pays 2 ct/km and the ICE car 8 ct/km

I wasn't denying they pay less taxes.
Just pointing out it's BECAUSE they are much more efficient.

I thought that was blindingly obvious.

To Bjorn this argument is so complex that it's silly.

(I made this fun graph for a report to the Dutch parliament so it's in Dutch: sorry.)

I don't claim EVs are not heavier. I claim the electric drivetrain is lighter and batteries get lighter every year so heavier EVs are a temporary phenomenon.

I explain this simple dynamic in a lecture for the "University of the Netherlands" (English subs)

I thought it was interesting to show batteries became about 25x lighter already and this will continue.

Of the 10k people who watched it, Bjorn is the first to protest.

(In the video I predict they become lighter in ~2025.)

Of course, what do I know about electric vehicle weight? I'm just a clueless hack that's part of the automotive department of the technical university @TUeindhoven and specializes in electric vehicles.

I'm not a statistician like Lomborg.

Now the crux of his argument: it's me against "Nature researchers"!

Let's ignore that it's not a peer reviewed paper but a comment (=opinion piece).
Let's ignore the researchers are in favour of EVs (unlike Bjorn) and he just picks out one line he likes.

What are their sources?

Like I explain in my thread they have 2 sources for the argument that the (temporary) weight increase of EVs kills more people:

1) A 2012 article that only looks at vehicle to vehicle collisions and doesn't consider EVs or other crashes or e.g pedestrians

2) An article on pedestrian deaths that talks about size but not weight and not EVs.

If you know this field you know height, bonnet shape/material, and braking power are more important than weight for pedestrian safety.

So that's his response to my line by line takedown of his article:

1) He claims EVs pay less taxes
(I already agreed🤷‍♂️)

2) He repeats "the opinion piece says heavy EVs mean more deaths"
(without engaging with my factual rebuttals)

I honestly thought you were smarter Bjorn.