Thread by @AukeHoekstra

It's remarkable that Germany is now the leading source of #fakenews on electric vehicles (EVs).

Claim: @Tesla's on renewable energy need 75000 km to emit less CO2.

Truth: less than 25000 km.

(Tesla emits 6 gr/km vs 240 gr/km for a gasoline car.)

Let me show you.

https://twitter.com/thestanceman1/status/1279319764469506050

In advance: I agree with @SWagenknecht that smaller cars (or bicycles!) are better. I also think mining and recyling can be improved (and ARE improving btw.).

But let's be honest here, that is not the point of the video. The point is to dump on 'not invented here' EVs.

It is a litany of every anti-EV argument you've ever heard and even compares it to bad scary nuclear energy. And why not efuels, hydrogen or small diesels? Why promote @Tesla with it's bad working conditions?

EVs are bad. Bad. BAD. ...
because they are not a German invention.

That was the message of the video to me but I can't prove that. What I can prove is that she had to mutilate these pesky things called facts in order to give this anti-EV rampage a veneer of credibility.

So let's take it's central quantified claim. And let's take it apart.

Translated quote (7:08 in video): "We have to be clear. Even with 100% renewables, models like those of Tesla would need to drive at least 75 000 km before they - compared to similar gasoline cars - get to the same level in terms of emissions."

(After that she implies that taking the real energy mix and smaller diesel cars EVs don't have any any advantage but that's vague so I'll let that slide.)

I could direct you to my takedown of Hans Werner Sinn (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…) but let's do the math here. It's not hard.

A VW Golf uses around 7.7 liter per 100km. spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/…

Every liter emits 3140 grams of CO2.

https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1229108140723011585

So total emissions are 7.7 * 3140 / 100 = 242 grams/km.

That's more than in the brochure but that's because official NEDC tests are over 45 gr/km lower than reality.
transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files…

And because you must add ~30% production emissions of gasoline, just like you add production emissions of electricity (see previous tweet link).

What does the @Tesla emit per km on renewable energy?

Solar emits ~40 gr/kWh and Wind ~12 gr/kWh. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycl…

Let's take 30 gr/kWh to be conservative.

A Tesla Model 3 uses around 0.18-0.19 kWh/km
spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/…

fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearc…

So that's 30*0.19(again conservative)= 6 gr/km.

6 gr/km for the Tesla Model 3
242 gr/km for the VW Golf

That's a reduction of 236 gr/km or 98% !

See where this is going?

But we must add the 'klimarucksack' (climate backpack) because of the Tesla battery.

In the past I had to use scientific estimates but with the new impact report we know: 77 kg CO2/kWh of battery.
tesla.com/ns_videos/2019…

Largest Model 3 battery (again conservative) is 75 kWh.

So the climate backpack due to battery is 75 * 77 = 5775 kg.

My estimate is that the electric motor saves around 2000 kg in production but (again conservative) let's ignore that.

In that case it takes 5775 kg / 0.236 kg = 25000 km.

In a VERY conservative scenario.

If you want to do more comparisons and calculations yourself, @transenv has a good but simple tool:

https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1252137643216965633

And if you want an overview of some previous debunks I did:

https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1256110375558361089

In conclusion:
I do understand the pride in the instrumental role Germany played in the gasoline and diesel engine.

But does Germany also want to play a role in the future?
Or does it want to lie and see it's jobs evaporate by clinging to a technology that destroys the climate?