AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Oct 6, 2021 15 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Are electric cars as bad as the @FT wants us to believe?

That's something I study at the @TUeindhoven so I always read such stories with interest.

tl;dr All cars are bad but the advantage of EVs is much bigger than the @FT visual storytelling team wants you to believe.
First compliments where compliments are due: it's beautifully done.

And I think this is successful as an attempt to tell a story about the environmental problems of EVs.

Just don't mistake it for an attempt to be objective.
The storyline is "EVs seem nice but... beware!"

So they start with the positive stuff.
Then comes the turn in the story. And they immediately give the plot away:

We are not going to say EVs are worse: we are not radicals.

We are just going to pooh pooh and minimize the difference.
One study in China indeed suggests 60% more.

The study also says it's 3x less in the US where but that does not fit the storyline.

And in 2015 (the data sources of this study) battery production emitted around 200 kg CO2 per kWh of battery.

In 2021 it was around 75...
Also this tidbit: mining a tonne of lithium emits as much as the electricity from one or two US homes. Sounds dramatic but...

you can make about a hundred car batteries from one tonne of lithium...

So mining lithium for your EV emits less than your house electricity for a week?
Just pointing out they said production adds 60% emissions before and they say 33% here.
(Producing the rest of the EV actually emits less CO2 than producing a combustion car because the electric drivetrain is so much lighter.)
This is clever: they *seem* to suggest that charging an EV in China makes you emit 66% of driving a combustion car.

But the data they use actually includes battery production. Charging alone emits significantly less.
This is the actual table of the report they quote. I think it gives a different impression but I'll let you be the guide.
They claim the advantage of an EV in the EU is 17-30%. That is true in an outdated 2018 report using the infamous Swedish study that would halve battery emissions two years later.

Didn't they notice that they just quoted a newer study that actually shows the advantage is 70%?
"30 years from now EVs will emit significantly less CO2"
Whaaat??

We don't have to wait for that.
They already emit 70% less in the EU, 60% less in the US and about 30% less in China, according to their own source most recent source.
That's pretty significant to me.
Which leads to their long awaited conclusion: maybe one day EVs will have a minimal impact but there's a long and dirty road to travel first.

You can sense how all the data was cherry-picked to fit this neat - and combustion fan friendly - conclusion that they started with.
I think we should acknowledge that insofar as we want to drive cars, the electric motor is the only potentially green game in town and we should switch a.s.a.p.

That's a simpler conclusion but probably less appealing to FT readers.
P.s. To be clear: I *do* acknowledge that producing EVs is dirtier than producing normal cars and although EVs emit much less CO2 already and can get very close to zero eventually, the mining causes problems. So smaller or shared vehicles are a lot cleaner than larger ones.
P.s.s. Someone asked a link to more material. If you look in my pinned thread you will find a number of my studies showing how to correctly make such calculations and what the results are.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with AukeHoekstra

AukeHoekstra Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AukeHoekstra

Jun 17
The official report on the blackout in Spain and Portugal is just released. I'll give a quick summary of findings and provide some additional info.

TL;DR
conventional power plants didn't control the voltage as planned
over-voltage caused renewables to turn off as required
The report (of which only press reports are available) points the finger to

1 conventional backup plant taken offline for maintenance without replacement being arranged

9 other conventional backup plants, of which every one had a degree of non-compliance
uk.news.yahoo.com/spain-reveals-…
Renewables also had a role: "tension was very high and sustained, causing the disconnection of generators".


An inside source tells me the voltage went above 110% in many places and solar was required to switch off, which meant 8GW was lost all at once.elpais.com/economia/2025-…
Read 5 tweets
Jun 10
Just made a visualization for myself about the unprecedented growth in solar that I thought I might share.

From 1880 to 1950 all electricity came from fossil+hydro. Then nuclear briefly grew with market share increasing with up to 1% per year in 1985.

Now solar takes over. Image
I've described in more detail in a substack post:

There's more info on each picture there.aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/the-coming-s…
I made this picture because I think you forget what is happening when you look at total final energy. Renewables seem so tiny! Image
Read 8 tweets
Jun 9
I see this a lot:

Conservatives who *just know* that nuclear is better than solar and thus blame their favorite scapegoat *the government* for solar doing better.

But in reality it's the opposite: the market likes solar so much that not even the government can save nuclear.
I guess Andre's attention for me is due to my being irritated at his fact free diatribes of pseudo-scientific nonsense:


So now he sees reacting to me as a way to get attention?
And I'm reacting again, so maybe I'm being duped?
Anyhow...
Let's start with some quantifiable facts. (Things this conservative armchair energy philosopher is allergic to.)
First thing we notice is that solar and wind are clearly surpassing nuclear (though the new leadership of the department of energy denies it).
Image
Read 19 tweets
May 18
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
🧵 Image
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.) Image
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. Image
Read 21 tweets
Aug 13, 2024
Great to see more and more attention for flexible grid pricing.

We must say goodbye to the "copper plate" that offers free power everywhere and every time. It's hideously expensive and outdated.

What we need is smart flexibility.
🧵
The underlying reason is that the costs of different components of the energy system changed:

Some remained high (e.g. pylons, fossil & nuclear)

Some plummeted (e.g. solar, wind, batteries, EVs & inverters)

Some became possible at all (e.g. measuring & steering in real time)
So now we should make good use of these new, clean, abundant and affordable options, even if it means doing things a bit differently than before.

So what should we do different regarding grid congestion pricing?
Read 20 tweets
Jul 28, 2024
Some are angry about the "anti-Christian depiction of the last supper" at the Olympic Opening ceremony. (@elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump among others)

A Dutch art historian explains it's not the last supper but a Dutch painting of the Olympic gods.
And I explain what I loved.
🧵
Image
Image
Original Dutch thread here. I just translated it.


@WSchoonenberg shows that the "tableau vivant" (living painting) is depicting "The Feast of the Gods" by Jan van Bijlert, from 1635.
Image
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.


Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(