What a sad story: German car manufacturers association @VDA_online commits to climate neutrality by 2050...
BUT...
sees important role for combustion engines & eFuels
(a hideously expensive & inefficient combo).
If you are wondering why I scoff at eFuels for cars, just look at the chart. And know that all these efficiency reducing steps require expensive equipment too as @transenv shows in its famous efficiency charts. transportenvironment.org/press/e-fuels-…
Also know that heavy trucks will be able to drive without weight penalty and at much lower energy and maintenance costs in a few years, due to the electric drivetrain being lighter (researchgate.net/publication/33…)...
and due to the fact that over 80% of trucks travels no more than ~750 km a day and then returns to base where they can charge overnight.
That 80% will be electrified very soon without any need for expensive and inefficient eFuels as discussed here.
This German article criticises the "foolish" and "irritatingly energetic" focus of @volkswagen on electric vehicles.
I think the fool that's being exposed is the writer and we need acceleration, not uninformed attempts at procrastination (short rant). cicero.de/wirtschaft/zuk…
First question in the article: "Shouldn't we focus on synthetic fuels when most cars will have combustion engines in the forseeable future?"
The writer apparently doesn't know synthetic fuels require much more energy and are much more expensive.
"Extremely expensive charging infrastructure"
The writer really doesn't have a clue. I *make* these kinds of calculations and yes, it will cost billions, but compared to e.g. hydrogen and synthetic fuels he trots out here again it's pocket change.
You might already have heard about their paper showing charts like these that indicate well designed batteries could last up to ten times more km than the car.
When charging and discharging is partial the battery lasts even longer.
I've been saying for a long time that V2G is a good idea but only when it doesn't shorten the lifetime of the car. It seems clear that well constructed batteries are better than this criterion by 10x!
Do I see future for PHEVs? Not really because adding the combustion drivetrain with its costs, maintenance and fuel use loses as battery prices go down.
In practice this means 2-4 times more fuel pipe emissions of CO2 and NOx than currently assumed. And switching to WLTP doesn't really help either (and the ICCT agrees with me).
So if tests would be based on reality instead of the laboratory, this would be really bad for PHEVs.
And there's good news on the testing front. It seems the EU might be moving to reality based testing. Also the is more and more on road testing by institutes like @TheICCT informing policy. theicct.org/publications/t… (ht @YoannBeber)
QAnon is extreme but not so fringe anymore, now that we have Republican senators and Trump gamely embracing it.
You and I might "know" that it's a load of crap, but how can we explain the difference between QAnon and evidence based science? washingtonpost.com/technology/202…
It's all about the scientific method and how it uses empiric evidence that can be challenged and must fit into a plausible theory that can be disproven.
The wikipedia entry is short but good (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi…).
But even more than an elaborate method, science is a mindset.
The problem with the lab tests is that they don't reflect reality. They are paid for by the manufacturers instead of by an independent and adversarial organization like the EPA. The manufacturers use loopholes to game the tests. (This part of the problem doesn't exist in the US.)
But even if we organised EPA style advesarial testing, it is very hard to account for actual use. E.g. of plug-in hybrids that can or cannot be a match for someone's travel pattern and can or cannot be plugged in all the time.