Many people have asked me what I think of Twitter-promoted @JesseJenkins' account of the TX situation. Turns out he preemptively blocked me, but looking at his thread from another account I believe it's deliberately superficial, evading root causes that damn his favored policies.
Let's start with the simple truth: *the only real reason reliability has suddenly become an issue, everywhere*, is that policy now rewards unreliability and punishes reliability.
For much more on this read @MeredithAngwin's excellent "Shorting the Grid."
The primary goal of policies that reward reliability and punish reliability is to reduce CO2 emissions by the bizarre method of promoting unreliable solar and wind at the expense of reliable nuclear, as well as all other reliable power sources.
These anti-reliability policies, as I have explained in detail, are the root cause of the Texas situation.
Jesse Jenkins is a supporter of "net-zero" policies, which mostly consist of forcing us to use unreliable wind+solar. Thus he is a contributor to the anti-reliability policy trend at the root of TX's problems. His thread, predictably, ignores the culpability of that trend.
Jenkins' thread amounts to: Wind and solar did virtually nothing to help during the cold snap, but they were expected to do virtually nothing—so no problems there. Whereas natural gas and coal were expected to do a lot but they underperformed. So they’re the problem.
But the *reason* natural gas and coal underperformed was preventable problems caused by policies that punish reliability and reward unreliability--policies that Jenkins supports. That's why I say his analysis is deliberately superficial; the true analysis damns his policies.
Any serious analysis of what's going on in Texas should share the information captured in this chart: unreliable wind and solar electricity (green and yellow) completely fail to keep us warm or powered. Fossil/nuclear only "failed" in one place, TX, due to preventable problems.
I respect Jenkins' knowledge of many of the specifics of the TX grid. But by not giving the bigger picture of 1) anti-reliability policies and 2) green energy failure, he is contributing to the false and dangerous "fossil fuels failed" narrative.
Don't let Jenkins or anyone else distract you from the fact that "unreliables" failed everywhere. That's the fact we need to keep in mind as we are pitched policies to eliminate reliable fossil fuels and nuclear, and to "replace" them with unreliable wind and solar.
Here's Jenkins's thread. I would have quote-tweeted it, but for some reason he blocked me before I even read his post.
COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.
In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.
Good people should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom. 🧵👇
The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.
This is 180° wrong.
COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:
1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life 2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.
Myth: Hurricanes Helene and Milton show that we’re experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels.
Truth: Fossil fuels have made us much safer from extreme weather—and the recent hurricanes would’ve been far worse without them. 🧵👇
Media reports would lead us to believe that hurricanes like Helene and Milton are proof that fossil-fueled “climate change” is making extreme weather much more dangerous by virtue of being more intense and/or frequent. Mainstream data and climate science show otherwise.
Myth: We’re experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather.
Truth: We’re experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather, including a huge drop in extreme weather deaths in recent decades. All media reports on extreme weather should acknowledge this, yet none do.
The costs of Biden-Harris's "government-dictated green energy" policies have been enormous so far, would have been catastrophic if not for their opponents' resistance, and will be apocalyptic if not stopped in the future.
My testimony to the Budget Committee (video below) 🧵👇
Watch my testimony here:
My name is Alex Epstein. I am a non-partisan philosopher and energy expert. I am grateful to share with members of both parties my analysis of “government-dictated green energy,” which is the essential energy policy of the Biden-Harris administration and of much of today's world.
Media myth: Fossil fuels are making Texas, the capital of fossil fuels, more endangered by heat.
Truth: Fossil fuels have made Texas far safer than ever from climate, both from heat and the far more dangerous cold—but anti-fossil-fuel policies are stalling that progress. 🧵👇
A recent WSJ article portrays Texas as threatened by fossil-fueled climate warming. But as evidence, they point to just 200 additional heat deaths that can’t be traced back to climate change, while ignoring the overall decline in climate deaths that fossil fuels helped cause.
An objective account of climate danger and fossil fuels would look at what the general trend of climate danger is and what fossil fuels' role is in that trend. Globally and in Texas, the answer is clear: climate danger is lower than ever, and we have fossil fuels to thank for it.
Myth: @KamalaHarris used to be for banning fracking, but now she supports fracking.
Truth: Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—because she is still for the *net-zero agenda that requires banning fracking* along with all other fossil fuel activities. 🧵👇
Kamala Harris, who in 2019 said, “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking,” now tells voters in fracking-dependent states like PA that she is no longer wants to ban fracking.
They shouldn’t believe her, since Harris’s net-zero agenda *requires* banning fracking.
To know what to make of Harris’s reversal on a fracking ban, we need to first recognize that banning fracking would have been one of the most harmful policies in US history. It would have destroyed 60% of our oil production and 75% of our natural gas production.
Electricity rates have risen 47% faster than the CPI the last 12 months, and nearly 24% overall since the Biden-Harris administration began.
High electricity bills are the result of government-dictated green energy schemes. 🧵👇
As Americans struggle with rising summer electricity bills, it’s important to know that this struggle was 100% unnecessary and 100% preventable.
High electricity bills are the result of government-dictated schemes—such as the recent IRA—to build massive, wasteful, unreliable solar and wind infrastructure.