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.
My main problem with the VDI study is that they use wrong numbers for battery production.
They assume producing a 48 kWh battery emits 8,9t of CO2.
That means 185 kg/kWh (8900kg/48kWh).
As I show in my study, emissions per kWh have plummeted in recent years and are now around 75 kg/kWh.
I call this the first of six errors that many anti-EV studies make.
Every real expert in the field knows this by now.
So 8.9t becomes 3.6t. (4.5t worst case.)
Before you go "But... but... production in China using coal" you should read my report and understand that the drop is mainly due to factory processes becoming much more efficient as we learn and scale up.
I dug up a footnote in a study I debunked that nicely illustrates this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many people think solar and wind won't be able to keep the grid stable because they lack "inertia".
I think solar, wind and batteries will do a BETTER job and I think you can explain it thus:
- the old grid is a record player
- the new grid a digital player
🧵
If you play vinyl records, the rotating mass of the turntable is used to keep the speed steady. This leads some vinyl enthusiasts to seek more mass because that will keep things more steady.
This turntable by Excel audio attaches a separate mass. (Overkill but makes my point.)
In the same way the inertia in the rotors of current power plants helps the grid to keep a steady 50 Hz (in e.g. Europe) or 60 Hz (in e.g. the US) frequency.
These machines turn a heavy copper coil wound around a heavy iron core and this helps keep the grid frequency steady.
The heathen Gods have gathered on mount Olympus for a feast. Sun god Apollo is recognizable by his halo, Bacchus (Dionysus) by the grapes, Neptune (Poseidon) by his trident, Diana (Artemis) by the moon, Venus (Aphrodite) by Cupid.
If you add batteries to solar PV, not all energy has to flow through batteries. But let's keep it at $0.01 and add that to the price of solar. That makes PV (and wind) SUPER cheap!
Batteries must be discounted more quickly you say?
Cheap stationary batteries will pave the way for wind and solar in cheap and resilient energy grids. Unfortunately the @IEA is mispredicting it (again).
Many of my followers know this picture: it visualizes how the IEA underestimates solar. Now I see basically the same problem in their new battery report.
The IEAs new battery report gives a lot of great info on batteries but also two predictions taken from their authoritative world energy outlook: 1) STEPS which is basically business as usual 2) NZE (Net Zero Emissions) which is aspirational iea.org/reports/batter…
I used the Sunday afternoot to describe how I think that dirt cheap batteries will completely transform our electricity grid, paving the way for solar and wind and replacing grid reinforcements with grid buffers aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-ho…
This is something I'm working on for different government and grid operator projects, but I never realized just how cheap sodium batteries could become and how much of a game changer that will be.
So I used my Sunday evening to write this and would love your feedback!
First I look at the learning curve and then we see it is extremely predictable: every doubling of production has reduced prices by around 25%.
It's even steeper and more predictable than solar panels, the poster child of this type of learning curve.
(More details on substack.)