At our Congressional hearing on Wednesday, @AOC confidently said that a @Siemans report supports shutting down "tomorrow" the coal plant that provides 20% of Puerto Rico's power.
100% false. The report *does not even consider* a shutdown before 2027.
The smoking gun quote @AOC attributes to @Siemens is "No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal." But I couldn't find any phrase like that in the report Siemens prepared for Puerto Rico.
In fact I can't find @AOC's "quote" of @Siemens--"No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal"--anywhere on the Internet.
While @AOC claims that the @Siemens report supports a shutdown of Puerto Rico's coal plant "tomorrow," the report in its dozens of scenarios, *does not even consider a shutdown before 2027*. And all its shutdown scenarios involve *building new fossil fuel infrastructure*!
Not only does @Siemens not support @AOC in shutting down the PR coal plant "tomorrow," it has publicly clarified that it does supporting any shutdown even in 2027 and that a shutdown "is more costly than the option of continuing operations, resulting in higher costs"!
To give @AOC every benefit of the doubt, I made a 34-minute video refuting every single claim she and her energy witness (an environmental lawyer) made in support of the deadly closure of the reliable coal plant that provides 20% of PR's electricity.
I have now demonstrated definitively that @AOC's energy claims from our hearing Wednesday were 100% false--and that her advocacy for the immediate shutdown of PR's coal plant is deadly. If she truly cares about the people of PR she will publicly recant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Truth: Elon, through Tesla, has been one of America's biggest advocates of direct and indirect EV subsidies—and of punishments for Tesla's competitors.
🧵👇
Elon Musk likes to tell us that he is against all energy subsidies, including EV subsidies.
Yet the company he runs is one of America's biggest and most successful advocates of EV subsidies.
What gives?
Tesla under Elon Musk's leadership has consistently advocated for EV subsidies in various forms, including:
1) Biden's EV mandate (the most extreme form of subsidy) 2) Biden's EV subsidies (a direct EV subsidy) 3) Biden's heightened "CAFE" standards (an indirect EV subsidy)
Why are leading institutions so biased against fossil fuels?
Because their operating “anti-impact framework” causes them to view fossil fuels, which are inherently high impact, as intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 3 🧵👇
An Anti-Human Moral Goal and Standard
Our knowledge system’s opposition to fossil fuels while ignoring their enormous benefits can only be explained by it operating on an anti-human moral goal and standard of evaluation that regards benefits to human life as morally unimportant.
Outside the realm of energy, an example of an anti-human moral goal at work is the scientists who, operating on the anti-human moral goal of animal equality, oppose animal testing for medical research and disregard its life-saving benefits to humans.
If you ever hear anyone favorably compare solar and wind to coal, gas, or nuclear by citing a low LCOE—"Levelized Cost of Energy"—you are being scammed.
LCOE explicitly ignores "reliability-related considerations" and is therefore a garbage metric. 🧵👇
You've heard it over and over: "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels."
You might suspect something is wrong here, because if solar/wind were so cheap their developers wouldn't always be asking for subsidies, or claim the sky is falling when subsidies are taken away.
The suspicious claim that "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels" is usually justified using an intimidating-sounding metric called LCOE: "Levelized Cost of Energy."
LCOE is used all the time in prestigious publications and in government.
Our “knowledge system”—the people and institutions we rely upon to research, synthesize, disseminate, and evaluate expert knowledge—consistently ignores the massive, life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels.
A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 1 🧵👇
Save the World With…Fossil Fuels?
I am going to try to persuade you of something that might seem impossible: that one of the best things you can do to make the world a better place is to fight for more fossil fuel use—more use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Questioning the “Expert” Moral Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels
We're told rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is the expert consensus, but consider: 1) sometimes the alleged “expert” view is wrong, and 2) eliminating fossil fuels is a radical and potentially disastrous change.