AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Aug 10 11 tweets 6 min read
FINALLY!
Our paper on 100%RE is out!

It traces the history and fast growth of the scientific field that models 100% renewable energy: no fossil or nuclear needed.

Hundreds of peer reviewed studies now claim 100%RE is possible worldwide against low cost!
helsinkitimes.fi/themes/themes/… Image
In the newspaper article I also explain why I personally think this is so important: it's a hopeful message to young people who are depressed about climate change and would like a world running on 100% renewable energy but are afraid it's impossible or expensive. Image
Here's the tweet from the lead author. I've also included the paper's abstract as a picture.
Image
Here's a high def timeline showing some of the groundbreaking research. As you can see it's a young field. I still remember discovering Czisch and getting enthusiastic. In 2011 @mzjacobson's paper inspired me (I replaced the hydro increase with batteries in my Excel). Image
But SO MUCH has happened since then!

Some people mistakenly think it's still just a few researchers but as you can see there are multiple research groups and most of the new research is by new entrants. Dozens of these papers are also in the new IPCC WG3 report by the way. Image
And for those who say: what do you do when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine...

The fastest growing fields of study are grid capacity, energy storage, sector coupling, and P2X (electricity to molecules like H2) and back. So everybody in 100%RE is very aware of this. Image
That these papers design energy systems without fossil fuels and nuclear energy does not prove fossil and nuclear don't work! It's a research focus: feel free to include them in *your* models!

But it shows we can do without and that the resulting energy system is still low cost. Image
I personally find that good news because I think nuclear energy is often expensive, slow and impopular with lots of discussions about proliferation, accidents, and waste.

So I'm not so much against it as sceptical that it will be deployed at the speed we need. Image
And fossil fuel with carbon capture and storage is not a bad idea per se either. I'm just a bit bummed out by all the cheating, heel dragging, and not delivering good results.

This clip is humorous but not that far of the mark imho.
I'm more hopeful about solar and wind that keep defying expectations in terms of production growth and price decreases. Lead author @ChristianOnRE is especially bullish on solar. I'm glad the IPCC is also picking this up now.


hindawi.com/journals/compl… Image
Anyway: I'm happy this paper documents that energy systems without fossil fuel and nuclear are now scientific mainstream. And I'm very proud to be a co-author.
/end Image

• • •

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

Aug 3
There's a short clip, telling people to emigrate to Russia.
It's made by a pro-Russia group, it's circulating like crazy on Russian social media channels, and was tweeted by the Russian embassy.

But to the rest of the world it is a sublime self-parody.
🧵
If such a movie was made in western Europe, I would suspect some nasty but hilariously dense frat boys that wanted to thumb their chests. But whoever made this movie: they unwittingly produced a beautiful self parody.
The main reason for coming to Russia is apparently the availability (to men) of beautiful women.

They first make the point by showing these little girls.
How creepy can you get?
Read 18 tweets
Jul 8
Europe is in desperate need of natural gas. The gas field in Groningen still contains over 500 bcm of gas and the infrastructure to transport it.

This newsflash from experts calls for opening a rational discussion on the use of this gas.
(In Dutch so maybe use Google translate)
In its heydays, the field produced 80 bcm/year. But this started to cause earthquakes that damaged houses and could kill people (luckily no casualties so far). This made pumping gas politically toxic in the Netherlands.

But I think we can't afford to keep it a taboo any longer.
I am pleading for a cost-benefit analysis and a faster procedure to accommodate people threatened (bodily or financially).

So far 1.25 billion has been paid to the victims while production of 12 bcm at current prices would mean sending 20 billion less to Putin *this year*.
Read 12 tweets
Jul 6
I love @BloombergNEF but this is lamentable in my opinion. They came up with a rating for how green an EV is that rewards bigger batteries.

E.g. my model 3 standard range plus is "less green" than the long range with the bigger battery.

Really???
bloomberg.com/graphics/elect…
They say they want a simple formula.
Let me help.

Simply use kWh/mile in the US (kWh/km in the rest of the world) instead of inventing your own less adequate measure of range/weight.
Also, I have no idea where they get their specification of 83 kWh for all the Model 3 variants. Maybe they should check their calculations or point out where I'm wrong.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 19
This could be a blessing in disguise, forcing us to replace natural gas with renewables more quickly.

But to minimize loss of life, there's one measure that is more powerful than all others: we should start pumping gas from Groningen.
There's over 500 billion euro in the ground in Groningen that we now donate to Putin. It's also less polluting than Russian gas.

Why don't we use it?

Because Dutch politicians, Shell and the NAM have made such a mess that we aren't able to pay the people in Groningen.
This incompence is costing the Netherland and Groningen hundreds of billions that we donate to Putin while causing more global warming.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 14
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
Read 26 tweets
May 25
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.
Read 6 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 on Twitter!

:(