As the great @MarkPMills points out in his @WSJopinion piece on the physical requirements of the promised "green energy" transition, "there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries." Once again we see the inherent idiocy of government-dictated energy. 🧵
"The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040." --@MarkPMills
"The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational." --@MarkPMills
"Spooling up production can’t happen overnight. The IEA observes something every miner knows: 'It has taken on average over 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production.' Start tomorrow and new ETM production will begin only after 2035." --@MarkPMills
"'Mining and mineral processing require large volumes of water'—a serious issue when around half of global lithium and copper production takes place in areas of high water stress" --@MarkPMills
Today's amazing energy production--low-cost, on-demand, versatile energy for billions of people in thousands. of places--was made by millions of smart, free people collaborating and competing with one another. Not a handful of government energy dictators.
All the government-dictated "energy plans"--by academics, politicians, or climate catastrophist groups--are pretentious frauds, created by people whose ideas have never worked on any scale, let alone a global scale. And most of whom you wouldn't trust to run a 7-11.
Even when a really smart businessperson like Elon Musk claims to be able to dictate our energy future, they have no idea what they're talking about--as I documented last week with the $400 trillion in batteries one of Musk's fantasies would require.
Another debunking of government-dictated "energy plans" can be found in Michael Cembalest of JP Morgan's rigorous 2021 energy paper. See page 18 where he shows how Princeton and MIT "energy plans" do not account for the realities of building transmission. privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jp…
The next time you hear about some great "energy plan," ask "Why don't you make it work for one large company, let alone town, let alone city, then get back to me?" Anyone who can't do that, but demands the power to dictate the entire economy, is crank and a destroyer.
To learn about energy freedom, the key to real energy planning, go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thus it is sad to see many advocates of Bitcoin, in the name of deflecting "green" criticism, buy into the massive dishonesty that the parasitical solar/wind/offset "industry" has been perpetrating for years.
Some correctives...🧵
Q: Aren't solar and wind cheap?
A: Solar and wind are "unreliables" that depend on reliable fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro infrastructure. They don't replace the cost of fossil fuels, they add to the cost of fossil fuels. More solar+wind = higher prices.
The Biden administration is using the recent hacking of the Colonial Pipeline to portray oil as an insecure fuel that needs to be replaced by electricity. In reality, Biden's scheme of mandatory EVs on a wind-and-solar-dependent grid would be catastrophically insecure.
THREAD
The empty gas stations all over the East Coast in the wake of the hacking of the Colonial Pipeline have brought energy security to the forefront of our minds. Many wonder: How can we prevent this, or something worse, from happening again? The worst answer is: mandatory EVs.
It's important to note that even with the weeklong disruption of a pipeline that transports 105 million gallons of fuel daily, there has still been enough gasoline available to meet normal gasoline demand. The empty gas stations have come from media-induced panic-buying.
One of the most obvious opportunities the US is currently squandering is the export of LNG--liquefied natural gas. LNG can provide low-cost, reliable, clean natural gas around the world. But LNG's enormous potential is being strangled by irrational permitting policies.
THREAD
Natural gas is an incredibly versatile fuel--providing low-cost, clean residential heating; low-cost, clean "industrial process heat"; and low-cost, highly controllable and reliable clean electricity.
While natural gas used to be so hard to get that the US imported it, thanks to fracking and other shale energy technologies, the US now has a virtually limitless supply of low-cost, reliable, versatile, clean natural gas.
One of the most dangerous lies in the world today is the idea that unreliable solar energy, if combined with batteries, can power the world. And the most dangerous advocate of this lie is the brilliant Elon Musk--because he is so admired for his brilliance.
THREAD
For years, Elon Musk has been claiming that solar panels plus batteries can power the world. Because Musk is a brilliant engineer, this claim seems credible. But as I will show by examining a recent version of this claim (pictured), it is deeply dishonest.
Musk says that "to power the whole Earth" we need just solar panels and "some batteries."
What is "some batteries"?
To store a mere three days worth of energy, to be prepared for weeks (let alone seasons) with lower-than-usual sunlight, takes 1330 terawatt-hours in batteries.
The US is headed toward energy suicide, in large part because smart people are completely misrepresenting the capabilities of solar and wind energy. To counter this, I held a contest to answer some recent distortions by @elonmusk. Here are the winners. 🧵
Anti-development policies on America's federal lands have created crisis after crisis: from forests with deadly "fuel loads" to dependence on China for vital materials. The Biden Administration's anti-development "30 by 30" plan would make our public lands crisis far worse.
🧵
Imagine that as a large landowner you hire a property manager whose policies lead to: a failure to do proper maintenance, huge opportunities squandered, and catastrophic fires.
You'd fire that person and immediately change policies. That needs to happen with our federal lands.
For decades America's federal lands, which were supposed to be managed to allow commercial development of resources, recreation, and enjoyment of nature, have been mismanaged by *anti-development policies*--policies based on the idea that all human impact on nature is bad.