@AukeHoekstra @NaudLoomans @SamHamels @nworbmot @myszak64 @AdivoPoes @BILD @EnzoDiependal @derspiegel @focusonline
@StuttgarterZeit #171scientist
A x/14 Thread on the AukeHoekstra vs Thomas Koch dipute.
@StuttgarterZeit #171scientist
A x/14 Thread on the AukeHoekstra vs Thomas Koch dipute.
1/x Auke, instead of wordy explanations, let's clarify using calculations. For the sake of simple minds like me,
let`s apply the Ceteris Paribus Definition, in a simple fashion, without requiring the specific math expertise of @nworbmot 😊 Let me give it a try.`and comment
let`s apply the Ceteris Paribus Definition, in a simple fashion, without requiring the specific math expertise of @nworbmot 😊 Let me give it a try.`and comment
2/x Status:
EL Energy Mix Emission= 400 g/kWh CO2
EL Energy VRE Emission = 0 g/kWh CO2
EL Energy Fossil = 800 g/kWh CO2(coal)
EL-production share VRE= 50%
EL-production share fossil= 50%
EL-demand=500 TWh /year(German case)
EL Energy Mix Emission= 400 g/kWh CO2
EL Energy VRE Emission = 0 g/kWh CO2
EL Energy Fossil = 800 g/kWh CO2(coal)
EL-production share VRE= 50%
EL-production share fossil= 50%
EL-demand=500 TWh /year(German case)
3/x Now consider one can do a total (private+public) investment of, limited to, XXXX M€, and let`s calculate with your favored average g/kWh approach. (just to make it easier, I will not use marginal energy)
4/x In Scenario 1
The investment is 100% applied to implement BEV + Infrastructure. NO EXTRA VRE investment can be done since 0% budget is remaining=> No additional VRE EL production is possible.
The investment is 100% applied to implement BEV + Infrastructure. NO EXTRA VRE investment can be done since 0% budget is remaining=> No additional VRE EL production is possible.
5/x ADDITIONAL DEMAND origination from BEV = 100 TWh,
(50E6 PKW × 10.000 km/yr × 20kWh/100km)
=>EL production has to increase from 500- to 600 TWh
(50E6 PKW × 10.000 km/yr × 20kWh/100km)
=>EL production has to increase from 500- to 600 TWh
6/x In Scenario 2
the investment is 100% assigned to extra VRE production, resulting in a new EL-production share of 60%VRE.
40% EL remaining fossil. No BEV investment can be realized, bc. remaining budget=0. Total El-production =El-demand, remains 500 TWh
the investment is 100% assigned to extra VRE production, resulting in a new EL-production share of 60%VRE.
40% EL remaining fossil. No BEV investment can be realized, bc. remaining budget=0. Total El-production =El-demand, remains 500 TWh
7/x Resulting from transient acc. to Scenario 1.
New energy shares: 250 TWh origination from VRE and 350 TWh originating from fossil
=> (250 ÷600)×100%= 41,66% VRE, dropped from 50%
=> (350÷600)×100%=58,33% fossil, increased from 50%
New energy shares: 250 TWh origination from VRE and 350 TWh originating from fossil
=> (250 ÷600)×100%= 41,66% VRE, dropped from 50%
=> (350÷600)×100%=58,33% fossil, increased from 50%
8/x EL-Mix-CO2-emission increases form 400 g/kWh to (0,4166 × 0 +0,5833 × 800)= 466,66 g/kWh
66,66 g/kWh worse. This also applies to all other EL consumers, even for those who cannot afford a BEV.
Ref: CO2 taxation.
66,66 g/kWh worse. This also applies to all other EL consumers, even for those who cannot afford a BEV.
Ref: CO2 taxation.
9/x Resulting fromScenario 2
New energy share: 10 % additional VRE, yields a reduction of 10% fossil production Total EL production remains 500 TWh
This results in a new EL-Mix-CO2 emission. (0,60 × 0 + 0,40 × 800) = 320 g/kWh.
80 g/kWh better!For all El-consumers tot. 500TWh
New energy share: 10 % additional VRE, yields a reduction of 10% fossil production Total EL production remains 500 TWh
This results in a new EL-Mix-CO2 emission. (0,60 × 0 + 0,40 × 800) = 320 g/kWh.
80 g/kWh better!For all El-consumers tot. 500TWh
10/ Traditional ICE fuel consumption to beat BEV
After Scenario 2. EL- Energy mix = 466,66 g/kWh.
ICE Fuel consumption to beat BEV (for gasoline @ WTW 2, 884 kg CO2/liter )= 3,26 lit/100 km
(466,66 [g/kWh]×20 [kWh/100 km)÷2884 g/dm³)= 3,26 [dm³/100 km]
After Scenario 2. EL- Energy mix = 466,66 g/kWh.
ICE Fuel consumption to beat BEV (for gasoline @ WTW 2, 884 kg CO2/liter )= 3,26 lit/100 km
(466,66 [g/kWh]×20 [kWh/100 km)÷2884 g/dm³)= 3,26 [dm³/100 km]
11/x Bottom line.
Implementation of BEV will cause extra EL demand and will hamper the reduction of specific CO2 emissions [g/kWh] of the grid for a given VRE share. You can spend the XXXX M€ budget only once.
Implementation of BEV will cause extra EL demand and will hamper the reduction of specific CO2 emissions [g/kWh] of the grid for a given VRE share. You can spend the XXXX M€ budget only once.
12/x Final Remarks-1
Effects disregarded in this brief calculation:
a) Additional CO2 emission/reduction due to efficiency drop of fossil power generation because of VRE-balancing and due to V2G capability of BEV, respectively.
Effects disregarded in this brief calculation:
a) Additional CO2 emission/reduction due to efficiency drop of fossil power generation because of VRE-balancing and due to V2G capability of BEV, respectively.
13/x Also being disregarded:
b) CO2 bag pack consideration
c) Additional CO2 reduction due to reduced oil consumption of ICE replaced by BEV
d) Abschaltung AKW
e) Effects of Black-outs after switching off KKW and AKW in Germany.
b) CO2 bag pack consideration
c) Additional CO2 reduction due to reduced oil consumption of ICE replaced by BEV
d) Abschaltung AKW
e) Effects of Black-outs after switching off KKW and AKW in Germany.
14/x Questions
@AukeHoekstra What scenario ( 1 or 2) gives the best value for money in terms of CO2 reduction (kg/ €)
@nworbmot Is there an optimal distribution of budget over VRE implementation and BEV implementation which gives optimal benefit in terms of CO2 reduction/€
@AukeHoekstra What scenario ( 1 or 2) gives the best value for money in terms of CO2 reduction (kg/ €)
@nworbmot Is there an optimal distribution of budget over VRE implementation and BEV implementation which gives optimal benefit in terms of CO2 reduction/€
@AukeHoekstra @NaudLoomans @SamHamels
@nworbmot @myszak64 @AdivonaPoes @BILD
@EnzoDiependaal @derspiegel
@focusonline @StuttgarterZeit @EmielVanDruten
#171scientist
15/x
When using Aver-energy-mix for BEV => CO2 footprint of non-BEV users gets worse in Scenario-1
@nworbmot @myszak64 @AdivonaPoes @BILD
@EnzoDiependaal @derspiegel
@focusonline @StuttgarterZeit @EmielVanDruten
#171scientist
15/x
When using Aver-energy-mix for BEV => CO2 footprint of non-BEV users gets worse in Scenario-1
Repliek
ifkm.kit.edu/152.php#block1…
ifkm.kit.edu/152.php#block1…
Nieuwe commentaren " zum Thema"
focus.de/auto/news/umst…
focus.de/auto/news/umst…
@threadreaderapp unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
