EV sales increased over 100% in 2021!
In 2022 a 61% growth to over 10 million vehicles is expected!
I just tweeted about the amazing growth of solar PV but with EVs we see the same pattern.
🧵 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
I always focus on yearly exponential growth. With 61%, 2022 is expected to be a phenomenal year for EVs! But if you look at the entire period (with an average of 59%) it's actually average.
So I'm not surprised at all. Just very happy that it continues to go as can be expected.
By the way: as you can clearly see in the previous table, China is leading the world. Not only in production but also in adoption. So maybe it's only to be expected that they have most of the resource refineries and battery production. (The same is true for solar PV.)
And in a funny twist, the @Tesla Model Y became the best selling car in China's premium SUV segment. teslarati.com/tesla-model-y-…
(@tesla has also produced almost 1 million vehicles in 2021, became valued at 1 trillion dollars and saw profits explode.) techcrunch.com/2022/01/26/tes…
The growth is partly kick-started by subsidies, but mostly due to scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs that develop better and cheaper batteries.
Warning: if resource production is not scaled up, this yearly price decrease may stagnate. One more reason to ditch this addiction to ever larger vehicles and to treasure smaller vehicles and bicycles. (See: I said it. No need to comment on this.) bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
All in all there is reason to be hopeful that targets like 100% zero emission cars sold in Europe in 2030 are realistic and that we are kicking our addiction to oil.
And that's a biggie: I think EVs (and solar and wind replacing coal and gas) can keep us below 2C.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2018 and 2019 where timid with just 9% growth per year. But 2020, 2021 and 2022* (*expected) pick up the pace again with 22%, 27% and 25%. That is close to the average over 1977-2022 of 32% yearly growth. about.bnef.com/blog/solar-10-…
🧵
I would like to add that @solar_chase is openly calling her team "cowards" (tongue in cheek) for being conservative. She's claiming 2021 will probably still go up (maybe even to 200 GW).
I think their prognosis for 2022-2030 is probably also conservative again.
Maybe I can remind people that I've been saying and illustrating this since 2007 by pointing out the difference between reality and the "not predictions" of the IEA. But everybody falls victim to this conservatism in order to be taken seriously.
How I see #DontLookUp: an unintended self-parody of the makers on their own superficiality and uncritical acceptance of US exceptionalism.
I'm really glad that e.g. the reaction to COVID shows that we are not as dysfunctional as their Hollywood script demands.
A rant 🧵
I understand the moviemakers probably meant to satirise others but I feel they mostly parodied themselves.
The system that captured them and the training they received seems to make it almost impossible for them to engage with hard science in a meaningful way.
And I think Trump is a mad and dangerous enemy of truth but the caricature of him and his followers will only convince them you are smug & stupid. It's an easy way to get cheap laughs but will only polarize the issue further: #nothelping.
Didn't believe it at first so just reproduced it myself and this is indeed how wind and solar balance each other in OECD Europe according to the @IEA. Remarkable!
It means that increasing interconnectivity can be an alternative for seasonal storage for 100% renewable electricity.
I knew combining wind and sun lowers the cost and that there's more wind in winter. But this picture shows an almost *perfect* complementarity in the OECD region: wow.
Unpopular take: I've had enough of these "climate change is the end of the world and everybody who doesn't agree and panic is a moron" Hollywood movies.
I think they show Hollywood hyperbole is part of the problem, not the solution. grist.org/culture/dont-l…
I seldom fly, eat mostly vegan and drive electric from my solar panels of my energy positive house.
I've actually read the IPCC reports and I devote my life to developing models that show us how to accelerating the change towards renewable energy.
So I take this stuff seriously!
Climate change is a disaster and if we do nothing about it hundreds of thousands will die and many millions will be driven from their homes, every year for many many years.
But climate change is not a comet hurtling towards earth to doom us all.
Hydrogen is great! And most use cases pushed by the lobby are nonsense! Both these statements are true at the same time. And I love how @janrosenow has actually put in the time by collecting the independent (non lobby funded) studies on hydrogen.
In case you missed it: my friend (mostly ;-) @MLiebreich made what is probably the best hydrogen ladder detailing when it makes sense and when it doesn't. linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hy…
The problem for the hydrogen lobby (often fossil companies that want a conventional business model or a way to use natural gas) is that many applications that are sexy and great PR are actually not a great idea and the best applications for the planet are not commercial yet.
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!