AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Nov 16, 2022 20 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Today the @telegraaf (largest Dutch newspaper) printed a large opinion piece by MP @Rob_Roos, exhorting the EU to vote against the ban on combustion cars by 2035 under the heading:

"Electrification car park will become a nightmare"

Let me explain why his arguments are wrong.
I research EVs at the @TUeindhoven and to be honest, the only thing I feel I can compliment Rob on here is the suit.

Factually there are just so. many. problems.

But:
1) He offers a very reliable list of anti-EV arguments.
2) This vote is really important.

So here we go again.
Argument 1: "we will lose many jobs".

My retort: "You can fool yourself that people will keep buying the outdated technology forever but you will not fool worldwide consumers. As EVs get cheaper to buy and own they will switch and the environment will thank them."
To be clear: EVs WILL get cheaper to buy before 2030 and cheaper to own before ~2025. That's not just my analysis but also that of @BloombergNEF's @colinmckerrache and many others.

This is like the producers of incandescent lightbulbs trying to stop LEDs.
about.newenergyfinance.com/electric-vehic…
Which brings me to this important vote.

I am certain electric vehicles (EVs) are the future but the industry is dragging its feet and this EU ban on combustion engines in 2035 will give a clear signal to an industry in denial.

I wrote about it before.
We even wrote an entire white paper to sway this vote, explaining why banning combustion cars in the EU is a good idea.

It helped to shift the needle a (tiny) bit before and maybe it can again: please share it if you know anybody involved in this vote!
dropbox.com/s/4gv2pdrl4pnw…
Argument 2: “We are in an energy crisis and EVs make us use 20-25% MORE electricity, often not renewable!”

Less misleading framing: EVs use 4x LESS (!) energy than combustion vehicles & switch our dependency from oil (Russia’s biggest cash cow) to any source of electricity.
And yes, electricity generation is largely unsustainable. But even on the current mix, EVs already emit about 70% less greenhouse gas over their lifetime (battery production included).

See my pinned thread for more research and debunks.
Argument 3: "We need over 6 million new charge points in 7 years, which is impossible."

6 million new public charge points is about right.
But that's 1 charger for just 2% of public parking spaces.

If that's ever going to be one of the EU's hardest problems we can be very glad.
Argument 4: "EVs will require a drastic upgrade of the electricity grid!"

2 reasons this is nonsense:

1) The transition mantra is “electrify everything”. Which means we have to upgrade the electricity grid anyway, also without EVs. The added cost from EVs would be minimal.
2) But EVs also stand still 95% of the time and will use “smart charging”, enabling them to use cheap wind and solar at moments when other demand is limited.

NL is leading the world here and I expect it will be standard on every charge point before 2030.
Argument 5: “They are not cleaner: they are 40% heavier and therefore tires and breaks produce more particulate matter.”

We switch to EVs because they emit ~70% less CO2 now and ~90% less in 2050. So they are cleaner in that respect.

As for weight and particulates...
Battery weight ~halves every ten years while the electric drive train is lighter.

Right now they might be 20% (not 40%) heavier but the bulk of EVs sold before 2035 will be LIGHTER.

So in discussions over the 2022-2035 timeframe, this "EVs are heavier" argument needs to DIE.
Also, EVs don’t emit anything from their exhaust (which are smaller, more numerous and more dangerous particles than tire particles).

And EVs emit MUCH LESS from their brakes (also dangerous stuff) because they regenerate using their motor (charging the battery while braking).
Argument 6: “We need more scarce lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel and this stuff is controlled by dictatorships like China.”

Let me offer another picture showing how the impact of these metals DWARFS the demand for fossil fuels and other metals.
Even zooming in on metals the amounts we need are tiny.

We can get this stuff from many countries.
China is just the fastest and cheapest player.

But we ARE dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia for oil. Something only EVs can change since ~70% of oil is used for road transport.
“The cherry on the cake? Breton wants EU companies to keep exporting gasoline cars!”

I have bad news for Breton and Roos: they can love their polluting combustion cars but by 2035 it will be almost impossible to sell expensive, outdated, polluting combustion cars to anyone.
Roos his conclusion: “So it’s impossible, hardly better for the environment, increases dependency on dictatorships, and most of the world will not join. We need to vote against.”

My conclusion: this is basically a litany of lies:
EVs are not impossible but unavoidable.
EVs decreases our dependency on (petro) dictatorships.
EVs are simply a better technology that the whole world will adopt.

We can drag our feet, pollute more, and lose more money and jobs. Or we get with the program.

Vote carefully!
/end
Correction: ~70% of oil is used in transport but only ~50% in road transport. My bad.
iea.org/data-and-stati…

Addition: don't confuse dependence on fossil fuels with dependence on metals.
Without metals, less new goods are produced.
Without fossil fuels, everything stops.

• • •

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 13
Great to see more and more attention for flexible grid pricing.

We must say goodbye to the "copper plate" that offers free power everywhere and every time. It's hideously expensive and outdated.

What we need is smart flexibility.
🧵
The underlying reason is that the costs of different components of the energy system changed:

Some remained high (e.g. pylons, fossil & nuclear)

Some plummeted (e.g. solar, wind, batteries, EVs & inverters)

Some became possible at all (e.g. measuring & steering in real time)
So now we should make good use of these new, clean, abundant and affordable options, even if it means doing things a bit differently than before.

So what should we do different regarding grid congestion pricing?
Read 20 tweets
Jul 28
Some are angry about the "anti-Christian depiction of the last supper" at the Olympic Opening ceremony. (@elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump among others)

A Dutch art historian explains it's not the last supper but a Dutch painting of the Olympic gods.
And I explain what I loved.
🧵
Image
Image
Original Dutch thread here. I just translated it.


@WSchoonenberg shows that the "tableau vivant" (living painting) is depicting "The Feast of the Gods" by Jan van Bijlert, from 1635.
Image
The heathen Gods have gathered on mount Olympus for a feast. Sun god Apollo is recognizable by his halo, Bacchus (Dionysus) by the grapes, Neptune (Poseidon) by his trident, Diana (Artemis) by the moon, Venus (Aphrodite) by Cupid.


Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 24 tweets
Jul 9
With new batteries solar and wind are not only faster and cleaner, but also cheaper.

I'm estimating:
$0.08/kWh for PV+batteries
$0.07/kWh for wind+batteries

@skorusARK gives a good overview of current wisdom, but strongly declining battery prices change EVERYTHING
Image
I've recently written about how I was surprised I missed the enormous consequences of price reductions in batteries.

LFP cells are now $50/kWh and last 10 000 cycles.
That's $0.005 per kWh.

Say we double that to pack the cells and you are at $0.01/kWh.aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-ho…
If you add batteries to solar PV, not all energy has to flow through batteries. But let's keep it at $0.01 and add that to the price of solar. That makes PV (and wind) SUPER cheap!

Batteries must be discounted more quickly you say?
Read 10 tweets
Jun 20
Cheap stationary batteries will pave the way for wind and solar in cheap and resilient energy grids. Unfortunately the @IEA is mispredicting it (again).

Thread based on a free substack article I just wrote.
aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-li…
Image
Many of my followers know this picture: it visualizes how the IEA underestimates solar. Now I see basically the same problem in their new battery report.

Image
The IEAs new battery report gives a lot of great info on batteries but also two predictions taken from their authoritative world energy outlook:
1) STEPS which is basically business as usual
2) NZE (Net Zero Emissions) which is aspirational
iea.org/reports/batter…
Read 11 tweets
Jun 16
Batteries: how cheap can they get?

I used the Sunday afternoot to describe how I think that dirt cheap batteries will completely transform our electricity grid, paving the way for solar and wind and replacing grid reinforcements with grid buffers
aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-ho…
This is something I'm working on for different government and grid operator projects, but I never realized just how cheap sodium batteries could become and how much of a game changer that will be.

So I used my Sunday evening to write this and would love your feedback!
First I look at the learning curve and then we see it is extremely predictable: every doubling of production has reduced prices by around 25%.

It's even steeper and more predictable than solar panels, the poster child of this type of learning curve.
(More details on substack.) Image
Read 15 tweets
Jun 5
Aaaand we have another winner of the "EVs and renewables can never happen because of material scarcety" sweepstake. I thought @pwrhungry was more serious. Let me explain why this is misleading bollox.
First of all, notice how his argument is mainly that Vaclav Smil says this and HE is an authority.

Why bother to write a substack that basically parrots someone else?

Because you don't really understand it yourself and needed to write another substack maybe?
I'm a bit tired of this because Bryce abuses Smil the same way most people who are against renewables abuse him. They emphasize this is a serious and revered figure that knows numbers. They make it about the messenger, not the argument.
Read 14 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!

:(