AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Dec 12, 2021 8 tweets 4 min read Read on X
In my (Dutch) newspaper @trouw, mobility historian Vincent Vinne proclaims electric cars are unsustainable because they have lots of power and can drive fast.

Let me explain (again) why these things are actually beside the point for electric cars.
trouw.nl/opinie/waarom-…
Basically it's very simple: regular combustion engines get less efficient when they don't perform at their optimal power number of rotations per minute. You can see this in a BSFC plot.
On this map optimum is >250 g/kWh but it can increase to 475 g/kwh.
x-engineer.org/brake-specific…
So this means that a powerful engine (with a high top speed) is usually used at an optimal of say 70% of max power but only at 10% which then doubles energy use.

So historically speaking, mobility historian Vincent Vinnes is right. More power and topspeed is energy inefficient!
For a combustion engine in a practical car 35% optimal efficiency is pretty good. In the city it can easily drop to 10% or so: >200% more fuel use.

For EVs it works similarly but the impact is small. E.g. efficiency drops from 92+% to 86%: 7% more energy.
x-engineer.org/electric-vehic…
To make an issue out of the marginal extra energy use because of their top speed and acceleration betrays a fossil mindset.

(You could argue fast cars are less safe and driving at higher speeds does use more energy by the way. But these are very different issues.)
This doesn't mean electric vehicles are optimally sustainable! By making them larger and heavier and by not sharing them we use much more energy and material than is optimal!

So the Dutch head of state travels a lot more sustainably!
But let's put the focus where it belongs. When you want sustainable transportation, forget about making electric vehicles less powerful and slower (it hardly helps) and focus on making them smaller, lighter and shared.
/end
This should have been: an engine performs optimally at around 70% so a powerful engine that is usually used at much lower power (say 10%) will use twice as much energy as optimally possible in daily use.

• • •

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 20
Cheap stationary batteries will pave the way for wind and solar in cheap and resilient energy grids. Unfortunately the @IEA is mispredicting it (again).

Thread based on a free substack article I just wrote.
aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-li…
Image
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.

Image
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…
Read 11 tweets
Jun 16
Batteries: how cheap can they get?

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.) Image
Read 15 tweets
Jun 5
Aaaand we have another winner of the "EVs and renewables can never happen because of material scarcety" sweepstake. I thought @pwrhungry was more serious. Let me explain why this is misleading bollox.
First of all, notice how his argument is mainly that Vaclav Smil says this and HE is an authority.

Why bother to write a substack that basically parrots someone else?

Because you don't really understand it yourself and needed to write another substack maybe?
I'm a bit tired of this because Bryce abuses Smil the same way most people who are against renewables abuse him. They emphasize this is a serious and revered figure that knows numbers. They make it about the messenger, not the argument.
Read 14 tweets
Jun 1
I wholeheartedly agree with @MazzucatoM that we should better evaluate tech companies contributions.

But the focus on energy use makes a mountain out of a molehill while we have bigger fish to fry.

I see computing as both a huge opportunity and an existential threat.
🧵
For me the focus on *how much electricity* an industry uses usually indicates an outdated focus.

We have to get rid of fossil fuels and the mantra is "electrify everything". Because electricity is the form of energy that is usually more efficient and that is greening rapidly.
Many people still can't wrap their heads around the fact that electricity from wind and solar is getting clean, abundant and relatively cheap while we have more than enough materials to make it happen.

IF you focus on datacenter electricity use...
focus on how green it is.
Read 15 tweets
May 25
California is entering phase 2 of something we will see worldwide:

Phase 1)
Solar+wind replace up to ~70% of fossil electricity

Phase 2)
Solar+wind+batteries replace up to ~90% of fossil electricity

Phase 3)
Solar+wind+batteries+eFuels replace 100% of fossil electricity

🧵
Phase 1)
Solar+wind can replace up to ~70% of fossil electricity

It depends on the solar/wind mix, proximity to the equator, grid interconnections, and demand but we are simplifying here.

This is the simple part: just turn off coal+gas when there is enough wind or solar.
But then you run into limits:
1) Solar and wind become worthless when there is an excess (which is increasingly the case)
2) Your grid might not be able to handle the solar or wind peaks
3) Daily demand fluctuations don't match solar+wind
4) Seasonal fluctuations in wind+solar
Read 18 tweets
May 24
Cheap batteries are a GAME CHANGER for
GRID CONGESTION and for SOLAR and WIND

We are now moving towards $60 on the cell level for LFP and $40/kWh for sodium ion. $100 for stationary systems in Chine. Using them for demand response will turn the energy system upside down.
🧵
You might know that grid congestion is now the biggest problem facing the transition to renewables.

At the same time the grid is used 30% on average.
If you include all the safety buffers on different levels it might decrease to 15%.
The key to unlocking all that excess capacity is
DEMAND RESPONSE

That used to be complicated but with batteries it's relatively simple: just drop some containers with battery cells, connect them to the grid, and make them use a smart algorithm.
Read 10 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!

:(