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
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-…
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).
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
🧵
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.)
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.
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.