Media coverage of the CA wildfires is designed to do 2 things: 1) Get us to ignore the fundamental role of "green" forest mismanagement in causing the out-of-control fires. 2) Get us to ignore the CA blackouts and the fundamental role of "green energy" policies in causing them.
California is experiencing blackouts because of "green" policies that reward or mandate unreliable electricity from solar and wind and punish or outlaw reliable electricity from nuclear, natural gas, coal, or hydro. We need to understand and apply this lesson this election.
Fact: electricity producers know how to produce enough reliable electricity for virtually any situation--certainly plenty for the heat wave CA has been experiencing this year. All you need to do is build enough reliable power plants: nuclear, natural gas, coal, or hydro.
CA, attempting a mini-mini-Green New Deal, decided to mandate that a lot of the electricity generated in the state had to come from unreliable, "renewable" solar and wind electricity. We shut down reliable gas and nuclear plants to hit our renewable targets.
While California was boasting about its increasing use of "unreliables"--@KamalaHarris called it a "model"--the reality was that it was becoming an electricity parasite, hugely dependent on reliable gas, nuclear, and coal plants from neighboring states such as AZ, NV, and UT.
What happens to a state trying to rely on "unreliables" when there’s a regional heat wave? The wind dies down. The sun dies down daily. This meant CA needed more electricity from the states with “reliables”--but they need more, too, so they sent CA less. Surprise...blackouts!
Everyone needs to learn from CA's blackouts--and fast. Policies mandating unreliable solar and wind electricity are making our electricity grid more unreliable every year. If we do not make reliability a priority we will become a third-world grid with frequent blackouts.
Nationally we face the prospect of frequent "green blackouts" thanks to a cocktail of 3 bad policies: 1) mandating unreliables (solar and wind), 2) prematurely shutting down ultra-reliable coal and nuclear plants while 3) stopping the construction of natural gas infrastructure.
What is @JoeBiden's answer to the CA blackouts? His "plan" would make them nationwide and frequent via 1) more mandating unreliable solar and wind, 2) more shutdowns of ultra-reliable coal and nuclear plants, and 3) more obstacles to urgently-needed natural gas infrastructure.
Blackouts aren't the only problem with green energy policies. The main problem is cost. Because wind and solar are unreliable they can’t replace our reliable power plants, only duplicate or supplement them at tremendous cost. Even when CA electricity is working it's expensive.
Every candidate who supports mandating "unreliables," let alone the Green New Deal or @JoeBiden Plan, should be reminded of the utter failure the mini-mini-GND/Biden-Plan has caused in California. I hope @realDonaldTrump raises this in the debates and uses the term "unreliables."
There is no world in which mandating "unreliables" makes sense. If you want to lower CO2 emissions, decriminalize reliable nuclear energy--something the @JoeBiden plan completely fails to do. For a real, pro-freedom, pro-nuclear energy policy go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Senate bill *looks like* it has a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff for new solar/wind subsidies.
But one last-minute paragraph makes it worthless—because projects making a recoverable 5% investment in the next 12 months are exempt!
The idea of a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff was that new subsidies would actually end during the Trump administration.
But under the last-minute carveout, Big Green has 12 months to initiate as many subsidized projects as it wants using the insanely-easy-to-meet "construction" threshold. (All you need to do is commit 5% of expected project cost to buying re-sellable assets like solar panels.)
Once they declare "construction"—e.g., in July 2026—they'll have 4 years (e.g., July 2030) to "place in service." And then some of those projects, e.g., most wind projects, will get 10 years of subsidies.
So we'll still have wind subsidies on Donald Trump's 94th birthday!
Here's how much worse the Senate bill just got:
* Two days ago: "Placed in service" by 12-31-27—with new subsidized solar/wind projects stopping very quickly, and Trump being able to let subsidies truly end.
* Today: "Placed in service" by JULY 2030—with new subsidized solar/wind projects absolutely spamming the rid and ripping off taxpayers like never before, and Trump having no control over whether the subsidies end.
The current Senate bill is arguably worse than the original Senate Finance one. At least that bill decreased solar/wind subsidies starting in 2026 to 60%. The current bill just increased them to 100%.
The current bill is a solar/wind lobbyist's dream. It does not terminate the Green New Scam in any way, shape or form. It absolutely perpetuates it. And offensively so, I might add, by keeping the "placed in service" cutoff language so many people courageously fought for, then totally undoing it with a single last-minute paragraph that makes it worthless.
If the Senate wanted to extend the Green New Scam it should have said so, not insulted our intelligence by trying to bury the extension in one sneaky little paragraph.
PS Several Senators have already told me they didn't know about or understand this last-minute paragraph. If that's the case they should do whatever they can to fix the situation.
And just to be clear, NOTHING good will come out of extending the Green New Scam.
More on how a "construction" cutoff—e.g., the Senate's new "construction" by July 2026 "cutoff"—is not a cutoff but an extension.
Lobbyists love “construction” by a certain “cutoff” because they get 4 more bonus years of eligibility: a 4-year "safe harbor."
E.g., a solar/wind developer can just put a small amount of money down (5%, most of it recoverable) and it gets 4 more years to cash in the subsidy.
With the earlier Senate 2027 “placed in service” cutoff—no exceptions—new subsidized solar/wind projects would slow to a crawl by early 2026. And President Trump could ensure that subsidies would terminate during his term.
But under the final Senate bill's exemption for projects in "construction" by July 2026—which TOTALLY EXEMPTS PROJECTS FROM "PLACED IN SERVICE" BY 2027—these new unreliable projects will spam our grid at least through 2030 (4 years after the "construction" pseudo-cutoff).
Using the 10-year PTC (Production Tax Credit) subsidy, wind farms will still be collecting subsidies on President Trump’s 94th birthday in 2040!
This disaster for our grid and our budget is unfortunately the best-case scenario for the Senate bill.
Realistically, by extending eligibility for new subsidies well beyond President Trump’s term, the proposal makes it likely that future administrations and Congresses will extend solar and wind subsidies yet again—just as previous ones have done for over 30 years!
Here is a refutation of every lobbyist lie that more solar/wind subsidies are good for electricity.
FACT: SUBSIDIES HAVE PROVABLY REDUCED CAPACITY + RELIABILITY—AND INCREASED PRICES.
More subsidies can only make things worse.
Vote against extending them!
⚡️
Senators are deluged by lobbyists who say solar/wind subsidies have been great for America—and that the Senate needs to pass @joniernst's amendment to extend them.
But the Administration's top experts know the truth: these subsidies are a disaster the Senate needs to terminate.
@SecretaryWright @SecretaryBurgum Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, this year called IRA solar and wind subsidies “lunacy,” “a big mistake,” and “political posturing that results in higher costs and less reliable electricity.”
Republicans ran on a pledge to "terminate" the trillion-dollar Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, aka "the Green New Scam."
But their proposed budget keeps almost all the subsidies, while falsely claiming to save money through easily-reversed “phaseouts” starting in 4 years!
🧵
If you’re just joining the conversation about the IRA subsidies, here’s what you need to know: they are subsidies for inferior forms of energy that cost a fortune, raise energy costs, and make our grid unreliable—especially the solar/wind subsidies.
Canada has 3X the US’s oil reserves but less than 40% the production.
Why? Anti-oil politicians like Mark Carney who say they’re protecting Earth’s coldest country from global warming.
Here's the story of Canada's squandered oil opportunity—and how to reverse it 🇨🇦👇
*Canada has the greatest oil opportunity on Earth: > 3 times the reserves of the US, with lower production costs.*
Canada has 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves—by far the largest of any free country. And its producers can profit at $44 oil, vs. >$57 for US shale.
Canadian oil production is also continuing to get cheaper. Oil sands operating costs have dropped 19% over the past five years, and the industry—which is still fine-tuning how to coax oil-like bitumen out of oil sands—has substantial room for further cost reductions.
In addition to its massive proven oil reserves, Canada also has massive unexplored oil resources. Canada’s Northwest Territories may contain up to 37% of Canada’s total oil reserves, much of it light crude, which is even cheaper to extract and transport than bitumen from oil sands.
*Canada is squandering its oil opportunity, with < 40% of US production and much slower growth.*
Given Canada's massive oil reserves and lower production costs, Canadian oil should have been growing far faster than US oil—on a path to producing even more oil than the US does.
Instead, Canada is totally squandering its oil opportunity, with less than 40% of US production and slower growth since 2010.
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"
1. They are subsidies 2. They promote inferior energy 3. They raise energy costs 4. They make energy unreliable 5. They increase our debt 6. They make our economy less productive 7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*
Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.
Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.
A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.
But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.
How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?
Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).
Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.
It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*
Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.
But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.
The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.
The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.
The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.
The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!
The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!
The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.
The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America
Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.
Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.
Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline!
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.
The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.