This is my plenary presentation to the EVS35 (an hour from now) about electrifying heavy trucks. I predict it will go faster than you think!
Please react to the individual slides if you have something to add. #EVS35OSLO
About me
Shout out to Avere for putting me on stage and hosting EVS35
King of the road but offensively unaerodynamic
To this: reduce aero drag in half
That's a massive eTruck advantage
Now about the powertrain
Right now it's a beast!
This is half measures
This is the future! Saves at least 2000 kg
Now about the chassis
Ladder frames are outdated
This is the future
Structural batteries!
And this is still pretty conservative.
Now let's run a business with them.
They will remain more expensive to buy+finance but...
Energy saving!
Gives a good business case, even without energy taxes.
Fortunately we do tax energy.
Which means a well designed eTruck has a great business case!
And it gets even better for fleet owners!
The can divide their fleet up in segments and partially buy cheaper short range trucks while hauling the same cargo!
My policy recommendations
And my summary conclusions
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below and don't forget to hit that like and subscribe button. (I'm joking. But honestly curious about any feedback/corrections you can give.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Particulate emissions is a complex topic but one thing is very clear: electric vehicles DECREASE emissions from brake pads, because instead of using brake pads, they use the motor to brake, thereby recharging the battery.
(corrected tweet) euractiv.com/section/electr…
It's true that heavier vehicles cause more tire wear and that so far electric vehicles are a bit heavier.
(This will reverse in the coming years.)
But they only use the brake pads infrequently so particulate emissions from brakes sharply decrease.
Also, we should not forget that the smallest particles are worst and that tire particles are probably among the least carcinogenic (contrary to exhaust). But more research is needed to make the impact of size and composition of particulate emissions clearer.
The ACADEMIC FIGHT over BLUE HYDROGEN continues!
Today, @howarth_cornell and @mzjacobson published a rebuttal to a rebuttal
I thought it would be fun to walk you through it as an example of how these scientific brawls bring us closer to the truth
🧵 doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1…
Let's set the scene:
Lead author Robert @howarth_cornell is one of the most cited academics on both nitrogen pollution and methane emissions. He's one of the first (2011?) to point out fugitive emissions from shale gas where so large that they made shale gas almost as bad as coal
@mzjacobson has been calculating and claiming (forcefully) that "wind water solar" (no nuclear, biofuels & fossil+CCS) is the way to go since 2009.
This makes him the first (and certainly most outspoken) academic to do so in the US and he got lost of pushback.
I research electric vehicle emissions (and more) at the @TUeindhoven and somehow became the tweeter that corrects studies that exaggerate the emissions of electric vehicles. I did this many times and even published a manual on how to calculate it right (see my pinned thread).
1st problem in this study is that it takes really big batteries (range of the truck is over 1000 km!) while I would recommend starting with the majority of trucks that drive 600 km/day max
But no biggie since batteries just add 76 g CO2/km and a diesel trucks emits over 1000 g/km
New study creates database of 790 vehicles (!) and proclaims electric vehicles emit much less CO2
ht @advandermeer
BUT it could have been better: 1) Fails to take DEVELOPING electricity mix 2) Uses lab tests instead of reality 3) Outdated fuel production doi.org/10.1016/j.rser…
For nerds this table says it all. These inputs largely determine the output with the ones I highlighted being the most important. Let's start with the electricity mix (0.401 kg CO2/kWh)
They assume a car drives 14610 km/year for 15.7 years. So they have to estimate the average electricity mix over the period 2022-2038.
To the left the answer they picked based on their source umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/…
Regarding this article badmouthing EVs in @AutoExpress I would quickly like to point out that it's not just the research that is problematic (see thread) but also the person in charge of the research that was interviewed.
Short🧵
First this set-up which basically kicks of with: EVs hardly emit less so why do we subsidize them?
That is utter rubbish (it's 70% less emissions and rising in the EU on average, see thread) but it also shows the journalist is on the same missions as the person being interviewed.
"There is justification for EV when you drive just a few km."
WRONG! If you drive just a few km, by all means flog your aging diesel. EVs shine when you drive a lot. Then you earn back the battery faster. Both in terms of CO2 and in terms of $$$.
I wrote a "debunking manual" in @Joule_CP on how to avoid the 6 biggest errors in comparing CO2 emissions of electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion vehicles (ICEVs)