Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

Nations spent trillions subsidizing solar & wind but the share of energy from fossil fuels is nearly unchanged, going from 80.3% to 80.2% over last 10 years

The reason is because unreliable, weather-dependent energies can’t replace reliable energies

ren21.net/wp-content/upl…

In a way this is an old finding

In 2017 my colleagues @energybants @Ramamurthy_Arun discovered that there was no correlation between solar or wind and the “carbon intensity” of energy — CO2 emissions per unit of energy — at an aggregated level

environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/…

By contrast, the deployment of nuclear & hydro was strongly correlated with declining carbon intensity of energy. Why? Because both are reliable, and can thus replace coal and nat gas plants, where solar panels & wind turbines cannot. They can only operate alongside fossil fuels.

One year later, @energybants & @Madi_Czerwinski found California & Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity sectors had their investments in renewables been diverted instead to new nuclear

environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/…

Columnist @portereduardo @nytimes covered our analysis

“Had antinuclear forces, including Gov. Brown, not undone the state’s deployment of nuclear energy in the 1970s… only 27% of power produced in Calif. would come from fossil as opposed to 66% today.”

nytimes.com/2017/01/17/bus…

Greens e.g. @NRDC @SierraClub @TinneVdS know all of this, of course, as do the fossil fuel companies they take money from, or invest directly in

Renewables, environmentalism, & climate activism have for 50 years been a charade & front for fossil fuels

michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/maybe-theyre…

The five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total have invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables & climate policy.

forbes.com/sites/michaels…

The most influential green group, @NRDC, has a minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas and renewable energy companies that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.

It is currently working to kill nuclear plants in California and Illinois.

Renewables advocates know that had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants, instead of renewables and the grid upgrades they require, the two places would be generating 100% of their electricity from clean, zero-emission energy.

Sometimes, after I point these things out, someone will quip, “A lesson in unintended consequences.”

But after 50 years of killing nuclear & promoting renewables, the main consequence of anti-nuclear advocacy — more fossil fuel pollution — can not be considered unintentional.

As the limitations of renewables become obvious, support for nuclear grows from the Left

“Americans’ support for constructing new plants is now at 50% markedly higher than in years past. On the Left, there seems to be a shift underway” - @sunraysunray

michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/finally-they…