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.
⚠️ 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.
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.
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.