I loved my Prius but this is another example of @Toyota misleadingly promoting the hybrid because they are behind on full EVs. It's a bit like their famous "self charging car" commercials.
A plugin does not save as much CO2 emissions as a full EV. Nowhere near actually.
In reality people with a privately owned plugin drive 51-55% on gasoline and company cars drive 85-89% on gasoline. theicct.org/publication/re…
In the official EU tests plugin emissions are underestimated by a factor of 3-5. They are the new #dieselgate in the making.
So yes, I do worry that we get the materials for EV batteries in time, especially since so many people are buying gigantic SUVs. But many chemistries are possible and the market is creative.
Still, Toyota is not being truthful.
It's spreading FUD and selling snake oil.
P.s. And yes, IF battery materials are against a hard limit AND materials for fuel cells and electrolysis are abundant AND we have twice as many solar panels and wind turbines per car, THEN hydrogen is a great solution. But not one of these things is true, let alone all of them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think other countries should kick some sense into Dutch politicians because this is beyond the pale with a war going on and countless people condemned to energy poverty.
Suicides this causes alone dwarf the gas pumping consequences for Groningen.
And with 45 billion you could basically give everybody in danger a wonderful new house and still save thousands of people in Groningen by e.g. providing better healthcare.
So please help us!
We are shooting ourselves in the foot while maiming Europe (incl. Ukraine).
The @latimes just published an opinion piece that's makes a valid point (EVs are not a panacea) but then misses by exaggerating the CO2 emissions of EVs and the impact on the grid.
🧵 latimes.com/opinion/story/…
To be clear: EVs are just as dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians and take just as much parking and highway space.
And yes, EVs still emit a lot of CO2.
So I always advocate cycling, car sharing, and public transit: it makes a city nicer when you aren't driving a car.
But if you take into account the electricity mix that gets cleaner over the lifetime and include the latest battery manufacturing emissions we are already closer to 30% in most places.
And reducing emissions by a factor of 2 or 3 is nothing to sneeze at.
Ethereum just completed a software update that changed the validation mechanism from proof of work to proof of stake. Some argue that proof of work is more democratic or safer but I'm not convinced and proof of stake is SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENT! edition.cnn.com/2022/09/15/tec…
Why bother? I love the distributed ledger that cryptocurrencies offer. This enables the storage of data that you can trust to be immutable without a central organisation that can screw things up. It can e.g. act as a clearing house to settle transactions and exchange information.
Polysilicon supply (to make solar cells) is going
through. the. roof!!
Almost ONE TERAWATT PER YEAR planned in 2025!
Thread to explain how MAJOR this is
(with a little “told you so” thrown in for good measure).
Two caveats:
1) These are *planned* investment into *polysilicon*.
But it's pretty sure most of this will happen and it is the most important and expensive part of solar cells...
2) Most of it is in China.
But hey, the rest of the world could easily produce the stuff too...
First let's plot that on my somewhat famous solar growth graph. To the left old graph, to the right the new one.
I can't be bothered to update it every year but as you can see it's (again off the charts).
I love @KateRaworth but to be honest, I think solving the climate crisis is not really an economic problem and growing or shrinking GDP is a meaningless discussion.
Instead we should put behavioral scientists, engineers, and environmental scientists in the lead. I think.
🧵(rant)
To hear economist debate the issue always reminds me of "vital" discussions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
I think the problem is how we can prosper within planetary boundaries and economists (esp. degrowthers) have very little understanding of that.
Also the main degrowth argument comes down to this:
"You cannot prove your plans for Green Growth can keep us within planetary boundaries.
So we need to Degrow."
To which my answer is:
"Show me your plan to achieve Degrowth..."