Experts comment on criticism of “lobbyist writing” of 170 scientists

Experts comment on criticism of

How big is the contribution of E-cars for climate protection? It may be far lower than promised for years. At least 170 scientists from all over the world have expressed accordingly in an open letter to the EU Commission. Basic statement “Politics have fundamentally charged”. But this opinion are not all experts and practice criticism of scientists.

Professor Christian Rehanz from the Tu Dortmund criticized the letter: “The letter is highly embarrassing. It is a scientifically wristed lobbyist writing, which tries convulsively, the piston machines (Chairman domination of prof. Cook of the kit) to save.”To classify: Professor Thomas Koch from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), together with colleagues of the EU Commission, has accused a fundamental computational error. The electricity mix was simply calculated incorrectly. “The question is not: electric car or burner. The question is: fossil or not, “says cook. The time of criticism is well chosen. The EU is about to tighten its CO2 specifications for newly approved cars in Europe again.

Professor Martin Wietschel from the Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovation Research wrote in a contribution to the Science Media Center, cook the question of whether the CO2 emission of the electricity mix consumed by E-Cups is to be used or the CO2 Ejecting the border flow mix, ie additionally necessary streams. According to WiESschel for both positions, it give appropriate arguments. According to him, however, it is a scientific standard to use the use of average emissions. Because border stream emissions could not be clearly assigned. Furthermore, it should be considered that E-cars could in future serve as flexible storage for excess wind and solar energy.

Patrick Jochem from the German Aerospace Center continues: “The letter picks up a valid point,” but are too short at one point. For e-cars could speed up the energy transition in power generation and lead to negative marginal emissions, “in particular, if you integrate the E-cars as a mobile memory” in the energy system.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

9 thoughts on “Experts comment on criticism of “lobbyist writing” of 170 scientists”

  1. The air for the agestries is getting scarcer. Is questionable that here is an autolobby, which culminates Via PR climate reputation, nothing has been unturned to continue to market the burner. This shot could start back. Because the progress step can never be stopped by backward thinking. You just always lose the connection to the present and to the future anyway. Of credibility problems you can not speak anymore. Actually, it is embarrassing for the autolobby of the last century and a shame for so-called scientists who accept money to support lobbyists from this time.

  2. Yes, that’s in life – the “asshole density” (sorry for the hard word) is approximately equal in all population groups – this also applies to “scientists” &# 128521;

  3. So the article by prof. Cook was of course purely personal interest. He break away the funding money and he tries to save his institute. His cooperation partners in the automotive industry now also swing electro and are only a few money in the further development of piston machines. It’s that easy.

    Of course, there are also very quickly obvious which are probably the same motivated by the hunt for funding. Be it for renewable energies, battery research or whatever.

    But one should also mean (unfortunately not so) that everyone knows that the Bev alone does not save our climate. If we start only the coal to produce the additional electricity, no help is helped. The road turn must be hand in hand with the energy transition. Means wind power and photovoltaics must be greatly expanded and storage capacities are built up. That has the state in recent years (thanks to u.a. Mr. Altmeier) absolutely not on the chain. We want to create an energy transition but promotion for PV is becoming less and less, the construction of wind farms are getting heavier. That does not fit together.
    If certainly is certainly not even the oil lobby behind it exercises the pressure. The energy suppliers certainly have no interest in providing people with electricity and even heat (heat pump) themselves. Is also bad for the business if everyone makes his own electricity. You could also be z.B. Multi-family houses with PV planted and through the many parties in the house would probably hardly be fed. But legally is a nightmare if you sell your tenants your own PV electricity. That’s all stupid.

  4. Both sides shine through bias and thus putting the data as they fit into the concept. No study can be classified without knowing the client and do not believe any measurement you did not fake themselves.
    The fact is, the BEV is politically decided and is pressed by. It has already been investing too much money to turn around again. Whether this is meaningful for the environment or is not completely irrelevant.
    Personally, current models do not convince me yet, but our engineers will already find solutions. I’ll buy a new burner around the year 2030 and then drive them, like all my private cars ~ 15 years. After that, it will show what the market has to offer.
    I am confident that by 2045, most of the BEVS should be solved.

  5. My eauto does not stink, emit no pollutants after the cold start and makes significantly less noise in city traffic.
    Outdoors I invite green electricity from a provider that actively expands regenerative electricity

    Why to hell I should buy an internal combustion engine. He does not do anything better

  6. What unfortunately you have not received in the article is the dismissing statement in the open letter, E-Fuels are the solution. Something can only come from the conventional automotive industry. E-Fuels have a poor efficiency in the total balance (say: high power requirement) that they should not use them for land vehicles. At best for aircraft, where the weight of batteries and the size of hydrogen tanks is a problem, they may be an option.

  7. I am amazed about so much ideology instead of factual arguments. There are no plan on pages of the Okolobby, as the traditional energies can be replaced by new ones without the supply collapsing.

    To do this, Karl May said matching sentences to the Greenhorn:

    , A Greenhorn has studied astronomy for five years, but may destroy the nurse sky, without knowing how much clock it is. A Greenhorn puts the Bowiemesser so in the belts that he stings the blade in the thigh when bending. A greenhorn makes in the wild west such a strong campfire that it is tree high, and then surprises when discovered and shot by the Indians, that they can find him. A Greenhorn is just a Greenhorn …”

    With us no fire will flare and nobody shot. It’s just the light!

    So: If we want to remain industrialized country, we need a reliable power supply with stable tension and frequency and no volatile wind or solar power. We need a reliable transport system and if it is electrically, enough charging options for it. All this has to be created first, our previous low-voltage networks in the cities do not create that and are too weak. The Norwegians already heat electric and drive e-cars, but have four times power consumption. This does not force our country for a long time.
    And still one: Germany produces 2.26% of global CO2 post. If we shut down all CO2 consumers in Germany alone, the world has nothing of it.

    So love Greenhorn: make a plan as you replace everything, so it works and lead it. If that works then, I like to do with. At the end, please: Treat yourself with the arguments of the other side and consider where this could have right.

    Professor Koch has not only right with the mathematical false calculation of the power mix, it looks much worse in reality. Take a look at the portal of the Federal Network Agency Smard.DE, you will find the hourly generation of all energy sources. From this you can see that E-cars have to be predominantly loaded with fossil or atom flow and that conflicts the environmental balance, even if we do not support battery production.

    Learn first, then think, then write. That’s the right order.


Leave a Comment