Research from @TheICCT proving once again electric tractor-trailers are viable. Over 50% of road transport CO2 comes from these big rigs aka 18 wheelers and the share is growing. (More than either all airplanes or all shipping.) Electrifying these beasts is crucially important!
Have been saying this for at least five years (several master students, keynotes, and a set of blogs in 2017: elaad.nl/news/auke-hoek…) but this analysis is GOOD.
Little point I just discussed with the author: they mention losses of 16% due to aerodynamics and 15% due to rolling resistance.
But that's for a diesel truck where the combustion engine and braking syphon away ~70%. For an electric truck engine+break losses go from 70%>~15%.
With electric trucks I estimate that rolling resistance and aerodynamics will both cause 40-45% or losses.
So tires and aerodynamics should receive much more attention now that we've eliminated inefficient combustion engines.
We all know what a truck should look like in terms of aerodynamics. That can easily slash remaining emissions by 25%.
But tires are often forgotten and commercially available low rolling resistance upgrades to these lowly pieces of rubber could slash emissions another 25% or so.
So I love all the excitement about electric cars, boats and airplanes. But let's not forget to electrify the big rigs and to fit them with low rolling resistance tires!
/end
Clarification: it's 50% CO2 of road transport as in FREIGHT transport. Personal mobility causes more emissions than freight transport.
(pic is US)
I always use the term transport for goods and mobility for persons hence my confusing first tweet. Sorry. theicct.org/blogs/staff/a-…
P.s. Electrifying long haul trucks is not just a good way to reduce CO2 emissions but it will also make us healthier by removing a source of air-pollution. This is a study from June 2021 also looking at future diesel trucks. pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@MLiebreich Honest question Michael: are you sure that blue hydrogen subsidies will include all fugitive emissions and exclude SMR?
I've read some intentions but nothing close to assurances. Mostly silence which leaves the door wide open for abuse.
@MLiebreich I also think we should take a system perspective, just as we do with electricity. So no designating either coal or solar to EVs and no designating cleanest or dirtiest gas to blue hydrogen but taking the average.
@MLiebreich At the moment blue hydrogen reminds me of FCEVs that are cleaner than BEVs because H2 is produced next to the windmill and BEVs get the average mix or worse, while the same H2 windmill could have powered twice the amount of BEVs.
NEW argument from combustion engine fans:
move PV from Germany to Africa and make eFuels there: then we can drive just as far.
BUT PV isn't the problem.
IF it was you should still use a power line or hydrogen.
SO the combustion engine is still roadkill
🧵 frontier-economics.com/de/de/news-und…
It is true that a solar panel produces up to 5x more energy in the Sahara and that there's plenty of room there. But that doesn't negate the fact that these engines still make cities unhealthy (noise & ozone or NOx) and are expensive and maintenance prone.
On top of that these giant eFuel installations in Africa are just an expensive pipe dream of combustion engine lovers. So it's a highly theoretical debate.
And even IF we were to produce large amounts of eFuels in the Sahara, they should be used where they are most useful.
I think prioritizing GDP over happiness is obvious insanity and and refusing to nudge people away from mindless overconsumption is an intellectually lazy surrender to Mammon (hypercapitalism).
And that's before we go down the rabbit hole of entropy pessimism espoused by economists who fancy themselves engineers without understanding entropy and using tortuous mathematics to avoid straightforward observations of energy abundance. innovationorigins.com/en/tomorrow-is…
This @TechCrunch article by @MarkPMills is a collage of anti-EV tropes, pasted together in a way that doesn't let facts interfere with the intended anti-EV story, written by an amateur firmly stuck in the fossil era and not open to contrary evidence. A hot mess indeed.
When you compare the weight of gasoline vs batteries, at least take the 4x higher energy efficiency of the electric motor into account. (Sigh. Amateur.)
I want to inspire more people than just #energytwitter. For that I need people who know more than me about pop culture, art, literature, psychology, philosophy, and social sciences.
Do you know that stuff?
Can you help?
🧵
Most people I know are engineers who think about energy systems, storage, electric vehicles, etc.: technical nerds. I think it's safe to say that for 95% of people, their eyes glaze over when you talk about stuff like that.
I think our current climate problem is ultimately caused by our misconception that if we turn the earth into one giant factory, it will make us happy.
E.g. economics measures GDP that is basically throughput. It doesn't measure if we destroy the biosphere in the process.
For my Dutch followers: @DuurzaamNieuws claiming it takes EVs 8 years (reality = 1) to lower emissions.
I am sympathetic to the point that not driving cars helps more but these half-assed "calculations" mixed with anti-car sentiments help no-one. duurzaamnieuws.nl/iedereen-een-e…
Article start: "Producing EVs emits more CO2. That puts everything in a different light."
Have they been living under a rock?
Can you really be the editor of @DuurzaamNieuws and not know this?
They put the disadvantage at 4 tons.
Then they claim electric vehicles save 0.5 ton per year.
This is the most crucial (& wrong) number in the article. I have no idea where they got it from. It would amaze me if it's in the Ricardo report they refer to. ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/de…