I think climate change should be our international top priority. So why do I help to discredit the recent article in the @guardian about the Arctic methane 'bomb'?
Because:
Truthful arguments last longest.
We should not panic or cower in fear but ACT: we have the solutions.
Outdated scenarios like RCP8.5 (too often called baseline/reference)
Nonsense like 'Planet of the Humans'
Lies like EVs/solar/wind solve nothing
Untruth just muddies the waters and makes it harder to act.
IF we should give global warming the same priority as e.g. a World War we would soon have it under control.
Of course it is not a 'war' because we only reduce death/suffering and increase prosperity for all. Also the enemy is within so shooting him or her is not a solution.
It's more akin to tackling COVID-19.
And again: if we gave it the same priority we would soon have it under control.
Furthermore: implementing clean, abundant, economic and everlasting energy, mobility and food, takes humanity (and the planet) to a better place.
All in all I think we should avoid the scare mongering. It gives people depressions and makes them hopeless which is cruel and achieves nothing.
If we stick to the facts, it's clear we have an urgent problem and workable solutions. Let's implement them asap.
By the way: if you want to do a PhD in which you help me to find out how to do that in the fastest and most cost-effective way...
today applications close on 5 PhD positions: see NEONresearch.nl.
And there's a post-doc position opening up if you want to help organise it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
German quality newspaper @handelsblatt reports on new anti-EV study by German society of engineers VDI (@VDI_News).
VDI states that electric vehicles emit more CO2 than combustion engine vehicles due to battery production.
But VDI uses wrong numbers for...
battery production.
For those who don't know me: I research energy systems & mobility at the @TUeindhoven and specialize in comparing CO2 emissions of electric vehicles and combustion vehicles.
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…)...
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)