AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Nov 19, 2022 21 tweets 11 min read Read on X
Have others told you there are not enough raw materials to transition to 100% renewables?

Did they say minerals are the new oil?

Maybe they believed @SimonMichaux of @GTK_FI?

If so, please explain to them they were fooled, by showing them this thread. Image
Michaux has become a rockstar with his “proof” that renewables take too much energy and materials. He's all over the news/twitter.

He appeals to 2 groups:
1) Those who want to keep using fossil fuels
2) Those who want to deny green growth is possible

2 powerful constituencies! Image
But Michaux is clearly not an expert on renewables while it's my job at the @TUeindhoven.

And there’s no polite way to say this:
Michaux’s calculations are utter 🐂💩.

Energy modelers debate a lot – e.g. on nuclear – but I think we can all agree on this.
Michaux's report is not science either (it would not pass peer review) so it's not rebutted in a journal.

But @visaskn just wrote a detailed debunk:

I encourage you to read it in its entirety (50 tweets) because it's a treasure trove of corrected errors.
THE problem is that Michaux assumes more than a HUNDRED times too much stationary battery storage as a requirement to deploy solar and wind.
Image
I think the best study of a world running on 100% renewables (so ALL ENERGY with ZERO fossil fuel or nuclear) was done by my friend @ChristianOnRE.

He pegs it at 5 hours of stationary battery storage instead of Michaux’s month.

That’s roughly 150x less!
I should add that Michaux's total battery amounts are not 150x too high but “only” around 10x too high because electric transportation will indeed require a lot of lithium batteries.

But still: all his estimates for the really critical stuff are TEN TIMES TOO HIGH!
@KetanJ0
He also assumes stationary batteries use Nickel Cobalt and Manganese while experts will tell you they will use the heavier but cheaper and longer lasting LFP (lihtiumphosphate) batteries that use zero nickel and cobalt. Or flow batteries. Or sodium batteries. (No lithium needed.)
Now look at this “smoking gun” from his report again, knowing everything is 10x too high, stationary storage will hardly use nickel and cobalt, and copper can usually be replaced by aluminum if you can live with slightly thicker wires.

It's complete nonsense! Image
Lithium is the most serious problem. There is more than enough of the stuff in total (and 5000x more in seawater if we want to go crazy) but we need to scale up mining 10x the coming decades.

Still: the amount we need is TINY compared to other metals.
Image
And although we should certainly make mining cleaner and safer, please understand that the materials we need for the transition to sustainable energy are a drop in the bucket compared to building materials, agriculture, and fossil fuels.

We should get our priorities straight! Image
In total 0.1% of the earths surface is used for mining. Maybe 0.0001% for the stuff everybody is talking about when they think of renewables.

The reduction in coal mining alone dwarfs the increase in the stuff we need for renewables.
Image
When it comes to our destruction of our natural habitat, I can’t avoid talking about the elephant in the room: agriculture.

Agriculture uses 50% of land.
That’s 500x more than mining and ~500000x more than lithium, cobalt and nickel.
Image
To put it differently: if we all eat 1% less meat (or if we make cultured meat cheaper and healthier), we save more species than if we abandon all mining that’s needed for the shift to renewables.
ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Image
And don’t get me started on EROI (Energy Return On Investment), something Michaux is also droning on about.
As soon as EROI is much higher than 1 it stops being an issue.
The EROI of wind and solar is closer to 20.
It’s a total non issue.
@MLiebreich
And I agree the land requirements of wind and solar are non trivial in densely populated countries!

But don’t be fooled into thinking they are a showstopper. Worldwide we need ~0.1% to 0.3% of land to power the world with solar and wind.
Image
As for renewable minerals being the new oil…
1)
Amounts (in kg and $$$) are TINY compared to fossil and found everywhere.
2)
When oil deliveries stop => everything stops. When lithium deliveries stop => less new electric cars.
3)
You BURN fossil fuels. You can recycle minerals. Image
Does all this mean I see no problems?
I see lots of problems!

Less meat, smaller vehicles (preferably electric or human powered), less long distance flying, recycling, circular economy... we must change radically to stay within planetary boundaries!
doughnuteconomics.org/news/42 Image
And I agree wholeheartedly with the people saying resource use (also for renewables) should become super important!

Especially in rich countries we should get more locally and/or from sustainable and just sources. There's plenty of work to do there!
But using nonsensical calculus to satisfy myopic fantasies is not the way to solve the climate crisis.

Some solutions are better than others and renewables are a darn good option if we want cheap and abundant energy while staying within planetary boundaries.
/end
Here's some nice visuals from the @Tesla Investor day that underscore the point that resource scarcity is not going the stop the transition to renewables (ht @M_Steinbuch): tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/AA7YQM_… ImageImageImageImage

• • •

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

Jun 17
The official report on the blackout in Spain and Portugal is just released. I'll give a quick summary of findings and provide some additional info.

TL;DR
conventional power plants didn't control the voltage as planned
over-voltage caused renewables to turn off as required
The report (of which only press reports are available) points the finger to

1 conventional backup plant taken offline for maintenance without replacement being arranged

9 other conventional backup plants, of which every one had a degree of non-compliance
uk.news.yahoo.com/spain-reveals-…
Renewables also had a role: "tension was very high and sustained, causing the disconnection of generators".


An inside source tells me the voltage went above 110% in many places and solar was required to switch off, which meant 8GW was lost all at once.elpais.com/economia/2025-…
Read 5 tweets
Jun 10
Just made a visualization for myself about the unprecedented growth in solar that I thought I might share.

From 1880 to 1950 all electricity came from fossil+hydro. Then nuclear briefly grew with market share increasing with up to 1% per year in 1985.

Now solar takes over. Image
I've described in more detail in a substack post:

There's more info on each picture there.aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/the-coming-s…
I made this picture because I think you forget what is happening when you look at total final energy. Renewables seem so tiny! Image
Read 8 tweets
Jun 9
I see this a lot:

Conservatives who *just know* that nuclear is better than solar and thus blame their favorite scapegoat *the government* for solar doing better.

But in reality it's the opposite: the market likes solar so much that not even the government can save nuclear.
I guess Andre's attention for me is due to my being irritated at his fact free diatribes of pseudo-scientific nonsense:


So now he sees reacting to me as a way to get attention?
And I'm reacting again, so maybe I'm being duped?
Anyhow...
Let's start with some quantifiable facts. (Things this conservative armchair energy philosopher is allergic to.)
First thing we notice is that solar and wind are clearly surpassing nuclear (though the new leadership of the department of energy denies it).
Image
Read 19 tweets
May 18
Many people think solar and wind won't be able to keep the grid stable because they lack "inertia".

I think solar, wind and batteries will do a BETTER job and I think you can explain it thus:
- the old grid is a record player
- the new grid a digital player
🧵 Image
If you play vinyl records, the rotating mass of the turntable is used to keep the speed steady. This leads some vinyl enthusiasts to seek more mass because that will keep things more steady.

This turntable by Excel audio attaches a separate mass. (Overkill but makes my point.) Image
In the same way the inertia in the rotors of current power plants helps the grid to keep a steady 50 Hz (in e.g. Europe) or 60 Hz (in e.g. the US) frequency.

These machines turn a heavy copper coil wound around a heavy iron core and this helps keep the grid frequency steady. Image
Read 21 tweets
Aug 13, 2024
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, 2024
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

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!

:(