Profile picture
Mike Shellenberger
@ShellenbergerMD
, 3 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
The only “Green New Deals” that have ever worked were done with nuclear, not renewables.
How do I know? Well, for starters, I helped create one of them.

Here’s what happened: forbes.com/sites/michaels…
Germany will spend $580B on renewables by 2025. Its emissions are flat; its electric prices rose 50%

Calif. electricity prices rose 5x more than rest of US

Had California & Germany spent on nuclear what they spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Mike Shellenberger
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ShellenbergerMD see all

Profile picture
Mike Shellenberger
@ShellenbergerMD
Solar & wind make electricity expensive everywhere both because of their unreliability & their low energy return on energy invested (EROEI)

Minimum EROEI for economic viability is ~8x. Hydro & nuclear return 35x & 75x. Solar & wind return 2x & 4x

festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI…
A high-energy economy can produce solar panels & wind turbines, but solar & wind can't produce a high-energy economy.

Imagine solar panels powering factories to make solar panels. It would be like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left.

forbes.com/sites/michaels…
Greens have long wanted solar & wind precisely because they are low EROEI.

It is only recently that renewables have gained a high-tech & high-energy luster.

The real purpose of renewables was always to return humankind to low-energy agrarian living.

forbes.com/sites/michaels…
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Mike Shellenberger
@ShellenbergerMD
In Germany, biogas production has killed 17 people since 2005

Nuclear produces more electricity than biogas and has never killed anybody in Germany

Germany is scaling up biogas and phasing out nuclear

spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soz…
This is your periodic reminder that the love of renewables & hatred of nuclear has nothing to do with safety or accidents. How could it. Nuclear is not only the safest way to make electricity, it has saved 2 million lives to date
The desire to live in a society powered by renewables has always been motivated by the fantasy of returning to an agrarian civilization supposedly free from the horrors of modern life

forbes.com/sites/michaels…
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Mike Shellenberger
@ShellenbergerMD
War deaths rose 1400-1945 at which point leading thinkers said humankind needed world government & the elimination of nuclear to avert extinction

No global government was enacted, nukes spread, & yet war deaths declined 95%

h/t @OurWorldInData
More here

quillette.com/2019/05/24/why…
“In South Asia [nuclear deterrence] has done away with the prospect of full-scale war. It’s just not going to happen. The risks are so great as a consequence of the nuclearization of the subcontinent that neither side can seriously contemplate starting a war”
Read 4 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Ben Heard
@BNW_Ben
Here is a thread about uranium mining based on this article by Dr Gavin Mudd. It's worth reading theconversation.com/its-not-worth-…
1stly, I have researched and written about the environmental impacts of uranium mining in Australia. It was paid work with terms of reference that gave me authority. I cited Dr Mudd among others. Most have found it very helpful theconversation.com/its-not-worth-…
Wrong link...
minerals.org.au/sites/default/…
Read 17 tweets
Profile picture
Doug Parr
@doug_parr
The @UE expose of @BP_plc lobbying for relaxing US rules on emissions of methane, powerful greenhouse gas, shows split in oil majors, and possibly directions of travel
unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/12/bp-…
By contrast, Greenpeace are no friend of @Shell , but they are publicly calling for *tightening* of those same methane emissions rules
reuters.com/article/us-cer…
and Shell is clearly setting out to be a different kind of energy company with ambition to be world's biggest power generator in 15 years time (although gas clearly playing a big role, not just #renewables) ft.com/content/87cfc3…
Read 5 tweets
Profile picture
Harry ⭐️⭐️ Seldon
@fractalharry
Un article en français de 2013 qui reprend largement l’article du Dailymail précédemment cité de 2011.

(Quel temps perdu depuis 😭😭😭😭😭😭!)

contrepoints.org/2013/11/05/145…
Un excellentissime rapport :
“Transition Énergétique
La France en Echec
Analyse et Perspectives”
👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏

Lien vers un #thread
#EnR #nucléaire #transitionEnergetique

Bill Gates veut devenir plus actif sur le nucléaire énergétique :

Read 43 tweets
Profile picture
JesseJenkins
@JesseJenkins
Everything in this thread by @jacob_mays is correct (and also calmy and clearly articulated). Contrary to @ShellenbergerMD's thesis, there are no physical reasons why wind or solar power must increase electricity costs.
Michael's first (of two controversial) posts on renewables driving up electricity costs forbes.com/sites/michaels… contains several grains of truth (eg the declining value of wind/solar as they scale) but it doesn't connect the right dots either.
Michael misses the main obvious reason why wind or solar *may* have driven up electricity rates in some places (eg Germany, Denmark, California): while renewables have gotten MUCH cheaper in the last few years, they are subsidy independent in few places and only recently...
Read 14 tweets
Profile picture
(((Alex Gilbert)))
@gilbeaq
1. The recenty claim by @ShellenbergerMD that wind and solar increase electricity prices is misleading and incomplete, if not outright incorrect. His analysis emphasizes correlation over causation, confuses past studies with future expectations, and is limited to 1 type of price
2. The two piece’s I’m critiquing here: forbes.com/sites/michaels…

and here: forbes.com/sites/michaels…
3. As I understand it, the @ShellenbergerMD hypothesis is that adding solar and wind power increases electricity prices because of an unspecified mix of intermittency, more expensive transmission costs, and other physically-caused increased system costs
Read 25 tweets

Trending hashtags

#911Papers #NWO #CADems #TrustThePlan #MAGAts #DarkOverLord #FATCAgonnaGetcha #inThread #ExposeThemAll #GreenNewDeal #ASSA2018 #NineEleven #IsraelDid911 #EnR #infosec #USHouse #Balance #coal #TheStormIsHere #WeStandTogether #nucléaire #wind #nuclear #ChildTrafficking #ElChapoAct
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!