AukeHoekstra Profile picture
Feb 17 4 tweets 2 min read
The IEA continues to underestimate solar and the discrepancy remains stunning.

The first time I conceived of this visualization in 2010 or so, I expected it to be a temporary anomaly.
But reality continues to outpace predictions.
(Thx @CarbonBrief for making the update.)
Maybe you think: this can't possibly be true!
If so you are not alone.

But it goes back to the first IEA PV predictions from 2002.

Here's a blogpost where I explain how and why I made this graph.
(And yes, that's my younger self, minus the beard.)
maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/pho… Image
Why the underestimation?

Maybe because fuel is burned and lost, while the solar industry produces an exponentially growing number of devices that each produce energy for 20-40 years.

Here's a blog with many more of my speculations:
maartensteinbuch.com/2017/10/20/bet…
And before you go:
"but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine"

We know!

But you can still make a 100% renewable energy system work like a cost-effective charm, as hundreds of researchers have shown by now.

• • •

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

Feb 12
This presentation by @NatBullard is a GREAT documentation of where we are in the energy transition.

It's almost 150 slides, but very graphic and well thought out, so it's quick to digest.

Absolutely worth your time in my opinion!

I've added a short 🧵 with my highlights.
Some slides that stood out for me (almost impossible to choose, but still).

- We are "over the hump" in CO2 emissions
- Renewables are taking off, especially in China
- Energy demand growth can be green
Agricultural land use is declining but beware of biofuels.
Read 8 tweets
Feb 2
This coal mine will be powered by... wind energy!

Wait. What?

Yes, you read correctly, and I actually think it's a great idea.
My mission in life is to accelerate the transition from fossil fuel to renewables. My research projects at the @TUeindhoven do that, my firms do that, my wife works on it, we live in an energy positive house, eat vegan, and drive electric...
So I'm really not a fan of coal! But..
For the time being we still need coal to power our coal fired power plants. Replacing that infrastructure with low carbon alternatives takes planning, effort, and money.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 31
I see @Toyota's chief scientist Gill Pratt everywhere with his seemingly 'sober' claim that scarce lithium should be used in small batteries for hybrid cars (that Toyota is market leader in of course).

He's calling out "EV-only extremists".

And it's such utter bollox.
🧵 Image
IF lithium supply was fixed and small,
AND IF electric vehicles batteries could only use lithium,

that claim would have merit.

But does this look like supply is fixed to you?
visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-25…. Image
And did you know we already know where to find lithium for almost ten billion full-EVs and we are constantly finding more resources while the ocean contains thousands of times more than the resources we know on land?

My analysis based on: usgs.gov/centers/nation… Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 31
Marginal emissions are a hype in academia.
It means new demand is matched to the dirtiest electricity source.

But what demand is "new"?
Often it simply means innovation runs on coal.

Let me explain with simplified examples why I think it's an error that's to be avoided.
🧵
First off: Eric (@ElephantEating) is one of my favorite researchers and I think of him as a 100% good person.

And I understand marginal emission factors are tempting: they look cool and advanced and show you care about emissions. And yet they are simple to use.
But I think they are misleading nonsense.

To show how their pseudo precision goes wrong I need a numerical example.

I've made it super simple!

Consider a country existing of identical households that all use 15 kWh of electricity per day.
Read 22 tweets
Jan 25
"EVs will ruin the climate" is the message of this new @Guardian clickbait piece, focussing on how electric vehicle batteries need lithium, while mining is bad for the planet.

I think this crusade is unhelpful and the number for lithium mining presented 1000x too high.
🧵
To be clear: the original study doesn't put it so crudely, and I fully agree it's better for both livable cities and the climate if we drive less/smaller/shared cars.

But still: it centers on one question: "How can we reduce our use of lithium?"
climateandcommunity.org/more-mobility-…
The number presented is 300 million tons in the median scenario. Let me make a quick alternate calculation.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 16
This article claims energy reduction is the only way Australia will get all its energy from renewables, but one could also argue solar and wind just need to continue growing like in the 1991-2021 period.
Also: in 2015 wind and solar where below 49 TWh per year and in 2019 they where 100 TWh: they more than doubled.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy…

Saying they grew by 62% over this period (because you included hydro that grew a bit less) is misleading.
So all I did was fit curves over the data.
Final energy use is growing a bit less than linear with 22.5 TWh per year (R2 98.5%).
An S-curve over solar and wind (1991-2021) can get close to perfect: R2 value 99.52%.
(Exponential fit is also great 96% but is illogical.)
Read 7 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!

:(