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.

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.
Today's oil transport system could be even more resilient and adaptable were it not for numerous irrational government restrictions on transport--such as the Jones Act restrictions on ships--as well as anti-development opposition to numerous pipelines and local refineries.
Contrast the small, preventable shortages of the Colonial Pipeline disruptions with the absolute and deadly disaster of the recent Texas blackouts--where millions of people's lives were stopped and endangered for days, with countless lives saved by gasoline vehicles.
The relative lack of damage from a massive pipeline disruption compared to a massive electricity disruption illustrates the security of oil fuel supplies. Because oil fuel is so "energy dense" it is cheap to store for a rainy day, as well as cheap to transport in alternate ways.
Because oil fuel is so energy dense, it can be moved many different ways to any given location: by pipe, train, truck, and by sea. By contrast, when the electrical grid shuts down there is no alternative supply route for a given location to get electricity.
Despite the fact a massive pipeline disruption led only to problems that were mostly preventable as well as tiny compared to electricity disruptions, Energy Secretary Granholm portrayed EVs as a solution: "if you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you, clearly."
Not only are EVs inherently more vulnerable to supply disruptions than gasoline vehicles--because electricity infrastructure is far more fragile than versatile, adaptable oil transport infrastructure--this administration's policies are making electricity artificially fragile.
Two essentials of the Biden energy policies are mandating EVs, then mandating that the grid be powered mostly by unreliable wind turbines and solar panels that cannot handle today's electricity needs, let alone the far greater needs of an EV-filled grid.
The Administration's "80% clean energy by 2030" goal would require over 50% wind and solar on the grid.

That's twice what Texas has today--and let's not forget how wind and solar disappeared during the Texas freeze, when they were needed the most.…
Imagine if, during the recent freeze, Texas was far more dependent on unreliable solar and wind--and it had a massive fleet of EVs that needed charging. The blackouts would have lasted for weeks. That's what the Biden administration has in store for us.
Consider the case of Germany, where at 37% solar and wind, the idea of “peak smoothing” is making its way into law. This would allow electricity providers to shut down consumers like EV charging stations and heat pumps to keep them from collapsing the grid.
The proper policy toward EVs is to let them compete on the open market with gasoline vehicles, natural gas vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, etc. And if you want to increase the competitiveness of all EVs, then stop screwing up the grid by mandating unreliable solar and wind.
The number one challenge to the long-term cost-effectiveness of EVs is providing the massive amounts of additional electricity needed to power EVs with low cost and high reliability. If you want to do that with lower emissions, you need to liberate reliable nuclear energy.
The key to low-cost, reliable, secure energy is energy freedom. Producers need to be free to produce and transport energy in whatever ways they judge best, and we as consumers need to be free to choose the options that are best for us.
This Administration's plan of mandatory EVs on a mandatory-wind-and-solar grid is a recipe for national immobility. Let's use the pain of this week's gasoline shortages to inspire us to fight against this terrible plan--and for energy freedom, flexibility, and security.
For more on energy freedom check out

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

15 May
Bitcoin stands for honest money.

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.
Here's how the "100% renewable" fraud works.…
Read 12 tweets
12 May
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…
Read 11 tweets
6 May
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.

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.
Read 11 tweets
6 May
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.

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.
Read 9 tweets
30 Apr
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. 🧵

Read 10 tweets
29 Apr
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.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!