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
I think we need to start talking about psychological health of climate scientists. They are talking each other and us into a depression. Depression is real and it's a soul destroying unhelpful affliction to have.
Climate scientists are most severely impacted it seems. I think that's not because they know more but because they only focus on the problems (not on solutions) and because perversely they are more important when the problem is worse.
I've scanned hundreds of climate scientist papers the last few months and they almost always boil down to: "here's some new way to look at precisely how bad it is."
Even when you don't actually find that the future looks worse than you thought, that's a pretty horrible job.
I'm insanely proud that I have paved the way for PhDs like this in the NEONresearch.nl program.
First here is @swapnil_shekhar explaining in 2 minutes how he will research the diffusion of zero emission trucks and why that matters a lot.
Here the brilliant @EmielVanDruten (who is also a consultant for @WitteveenBos) explains how his PhD will shed light on how sector coupling can give us more renewable energy with less costly and labour intensive updates of the electricity grid.
Capitalism is not inherently bad. Many people just seem confused about income redistribution. I would love twitter to tell me why that is because I simply don't understand.
Quick🧵about how money could make use happier by redirecting it where it does the most good.
First of all, being super rich doesn't make you happy. That is not just the observation of this consultant to the super rich. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Extra money is super important when you are poor, but the added value per $ quickly decreases once you get richer and in US it tops at around $75k per year. cnbc.com/2015/12/14/mon…
Among all the doomism surrounding climate change it's good to realize we have the capacity to reduce the damage done, as the way we are dealing with natural disasters shows.
Of course severity and frequency of storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves could still be increasing (models certainly predict they will in the future) but how much of that can we already see in the data?
And then a little magic can happen on twitter...
World renowned expert @RichardTol asks @OurWorldInData to take a look at a dataset about precisely that, that lacks a user friendly interface due to funding that dried up.
Unfortunate news: battery prices will probably not go down for a few years as the price of metals (especially Lithium) soars. We really need new mines!
🧵 lithiumstoragebattery.com/news-lithium-b…
This was predicted already of course (e.g. by @JamesTFrith of @BloombergNEF), since improvements in manufacturing mean that the biggest costs are now to be found in the cathode material that now accounts for more than half of the battery cost.
One extra reason to phase out gas quickly is that production is so "leaky" that emissions are much higher than previously thought.
Abandoned fracking wells and countries like Russia are especially big culprits.
See the academic work of @howarth_cornell who put this on the map.
Stopping leaks and reducing venting during maintenance helps but as long as the worst polluters go scot-free it's like pushing water uphill.
Remember that e.g. Russia didn't sign the methane reduction pledge on #COP26.