Thread by @jaxroam

This author built a strawman so big that burning it could power a small town. Gist is "What would happen if we stopped eating meat right now?"

If "we" had meat as a major part of our diet we'd eventually die from starvation. Conclusion: Eat meat or die.

interestingengineering.com/transportation…

The attempt to sell the ICE car as "efficient" rankled most.

Driving in an ICE car is monstrously inefficient use of primary energy (though purely seen as a piece of engineering engine has greatly improved over time).

ourworldindata.org/energy-definit…

Author also wanted to ICE the thermal power plant, and sure, a CHP plant is reasonably energy-efficient. Which is why an EV performs better than equivalent ICE car, even if the electricity comes from a coal-fired plant.

But it leads to a more interesting thought experiment:
How fast could we replace fossil fuelled vehicles globally if we REALLY wanted to, optimising for lowered emissions? Should we try?

We probably could do it in about a decade instead of mostly by 2050 by current pathway.

We'd have to convert existing ICE cars in addition to scaling up EV production, rethink and rebuild public transport and logistics chain, greatly scale up battery production and the grid.

Alternatives to cars would be preferred in cities and built-up areas, an ebike consumes less power than an ecar. So do ebuses and etrains.

Rideshare in different forms and shapes outside cities, at least until EV fleet builds up.

And Work From Home.

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1580946531296821249

Scenario was "no ICE", excluding non-fossil fuels like biodiesel and hydrogen. It does not exclude airplanes or really ships (or power plants).

In a "no fossil fuel" scenario, green hydrogen would have a second shot, Would make land logistics easier, and sea and air much harder.

So back to our scenario, logistics would likely be second hardest problem. Train logistics would have to scale up.

There are electric trucks for sale and in use, but they are yet niche and the infrastructure doesn't really support them.

https://twitter.com/ScaniaGroup/status/1572863152630661123

The (relatively) quick fix could be the "trolley truck", using overhead power wires and #pantograph. Wiring motorways and main transport arteries would be costly and require a lot of wires, but is feasible.

Which leads to the biggest challenge, the electricity to feed these vehicles and the batteries to store them. Primary use of batteries in the decade ahead is for EVs, and there is no short or medium-term alternative to Li-ion. We would have little time to improve them.

Those "look at all the lithium you have to extract" articles would now be largely true, and in a very short time span.

"achieving the goal, before this decade is out" would require government intervention, sustained will, and likely eminent domain. Starting now.

Lithium would not be the only metal.

On our current more leisurely path towards transport electrification, EVs wouldn't take up much of the power, and would actually stabilise the grid, charging at low demand periods. On an expedited path we would not have that luxury.

We would need to generate much more power, particularly in areas with low electrification. Plus the grid itself, with charge points. The critical constraint might not be metal, or money, but manpower.

Many new engineering schools across the world.

We are already electrifying the world at a somewhat brisk pace, but assuming these resources and a sense of urgency we have the capacity to speed it up drastically.

EU in the wake of the Russian invasion is an example, #REpowerEU.

It takes a year or two to actually build a wind farm, but it can take a decade to get the required permissions. Likewise the actual time it takes to build a power line averages 10-15 years, not just the EU.
This would have to be redesigned for speed, which in itself takes time.

Battery factories would have to multiply like convenience stores in a new market. Solar panels and charge points would sprout up everywhere.

Change would be slow at first, and then all at once.

So, should we try? Would it be worth it?

Almost certainly not. It *would* reduce CO₂ emissions with 6 gigatons every year, give or take, or about the emissions of the US. Not a trivial amount. But we could likely achieve more for less.

If instead the world could take the urgency of EU when Putin made them short 1/12 of their power generation and 2/5 of their fossil gas consumption AND use it for long-term optimising, we would be back on track for #COP27.

@threadreaderapp unroll