Thread by @AukeHoekstra

171 scientists find calculation error that proves the electric vehicle is not greener!

That's the gist of many German papers today but a better headline would be:

THE COMBUSTION ENGINE LOBBY IS GASLIGHTING AGAIN

Thread

The hubbub is about an open letter to the @EU_Commission by a greenwashing combustion engine lobby group iastec.org/open-letter-2 based on a calculation published in a mathematical (?) journal by some combustion engine scientists.
s875128239.online.de/wp-content/upl…

Let's take it apart!

I must admit the details of the math confused me at first. It seemed unnecessarily complicated so I asked my friend @nworbmot to take a look. (He's a quantum physics scientist who now makes energy models: he can do REALLY complicated math.)

The reason I didn't understand it at first is because they use a really convoluted and amateurish but yet complicated roundabout way to calculate it.

https://twitter.com/nworbmot/status/1407062623439527945

His verdict: this calculation would never get published in an actual energy related journal.

https://twitter.com/nworbmot/status/1407064661715996678

(and thanks @EnzoDiependaal for doing a double-check)

So what is really going on here?
Why does this calculation lead to different results?

Basically they calculate marginal electricity (without knowing the term). Put simply: if you use more electricity than solar and wind can provide you need to burn coal and that emits a lot more CO2 per kWh of energy. So you *could* say electric vehicles drive on coal. But...

It could *also* be electricity to produce gasoline. Or electricity to produce hydrogen. Or another eFuel. Or heat pumps. Or lighting. Or anything basically. Using this method you can use *anything* you don't like and say: if we wouldn't do this we would burn less coal.

I already discuss this trick on page 16 of my publication on how to calculate EV emissions correctly. avere.org/wp-content/upl…

I also discuss it at length in this rebuttal of the work of a Saudi Aramco scientist
thegwpf.org/how-green-are-…

Bottom line: DO take the average mix and NOT the marginal mix. The marginal mix produces coal for anything you don't like and that might seem tempting but it's also wrong.

But there's more!

The IASTEC also forgets that EVs will engage in demand-response in 2030. This means that they will charge in off-peak hours to avoid overloading the grid and to get cheaper electricity. This dramatically lowers CO2 emissions because off peak electricity is more renewable.

And they forget that the electricity mix gets greener over the lifetime of the EV. E.g. Germany will close it's coal fired power plants latest 2038 and they will be used less and less. This happens during the lifetime of the EV and should be taken into account.

For more on this (I call it error 3) see my publication in Joule sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

and in more details on page 14 of my study here:
avere.org/wp-content/upl…

To summarize: this new study showing the @EU_Commission makes a calculation error that underestimates CO2 emissions of EVs hasn't found a smoking gun. Instead it proves that the authors are pretty clueless.

I hope @derspiegel @focusonline @StuttgarterZeit can rectify their breathless misinformation

https://twitter.com/StZ_NEWS/status/1406651482204786692?s=20

stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.klimabi…

bild.de/auto/mobilitae…

focus.de/auto/elektroau…

Many thanks to those who alerted me:
@thestanceman1 and @FloKo03399087 and @robertvg

https://twitter.com/thestanceman1/status/1407004409775656960?s=20

@LenzGrimmer

https://twitter.com/LenzGrimmer/status/1407067595103248384?s=20

https://twitter.com/LenzGrimmer/status/1407062529923297285?s=20

@myszak64

https://twitter.com/myszak64/status/1407005746303221764?s=20

Lead author Thomas Koch (IASTEC and heading Institute of Internal Combustion Engines Research (IFKM) at @KITKarlsruhe) is as arrogant as he is wrong.

Recently made waves with a lobby-study that made calculatory errors while trying to greenwash diesels.

https://twitter.com/RaphaelWimmer/status/1407218108578869250?s=20

The plot thickens!
Apparently IASTEC is a front organisation of Thomas Koch that was founded days ago.

Reminds me of #AstonGate where @MLiebreich found the "independent" organisation publishing the research was lead by the wife of @astonmartin's PR head.

https://twitter.com/goe_f/status/1407256938438664193?s=20

But looking at the IASTEC position paper Koch has garnered a lot of support internationally among others working on combustion engines, fantasizing that biofuels and eFuels will enable them to continue their research. This will be a *long* fight. Sigh.
iastec.org/position-paper

Glad German media now also provide pushback by some highly respected experts.

https://twitter.com/nworbmot/status/1407435044898193415?s=19