John Kerry casually mentioned in a COP 26 interview that the US won't be using any coal by 2030.
What an ignorant and presumptuous wannabe dictator he is.
In the last several years, reliable, *resilient* coal has bailed out solar, wind, and even natural gas many times.
THREAD
This past winter, reliable, resilient coal bailed out solar/wind (which largely disappear when it's very cold) as well as natural gas (which is more vulnerable than coal to supply disruptions) in many states including OK--see this quote from @GovStitt.
The disastrous TX blackouts should have taught us that we need power plants that are 1) reliable and 2) resilient. Reliable means: they can produce as much power as we need, when we need it. Resilient means: they can keep producing power even under adverse conditions.
One key to resilience is "on-site fuel storage"--keeping a large amount of fuel at a power plant so that it can produce power even during a supply disruption. The champions at on-site fuel storage are coal and nuclear, which can cheaply keep months of fuel on hand.
Natural gas is not usually as resilient as coal and nuclear, because natural gas is expensive to store in large quantities. Most natural gas power depends on "just in time" delivery from pipelines. If pipeline transport is disrupted, many natural gas plants will go down.
Texas largely abandoning reliable, resilient coal was one reason for its terrible blackouts earlier this year.
Here's how Alberta, which uses a lot of coal, was able to avoid the disastrous February blackouts that Texas had despite experiencing lower temperatures the same week.
Casual calls to eliminate coal, by John Kerry and others, are going to get a lot of people killed one of these winters--maybe this winter. Our grid is extremely vulnerable right now because we have shut down many resilient nuclear plants and a vast amount of resilient coal power.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here we go...LinkedIn has, without explanation, taken down my popular evisceration of COP 26. The last time they took down a post of mine they ended up reinstating it and apologizing...
Help fight suppression of the truth by continuing to share the Twitter version of this video.
Here's what happened the last time LinkedIn took down a post of mine...they were obviously wrong, and to their credit, reinstated the post and apologized. But it took a lot of public attention to get there.
As I said in the video that LinkedIn is currently suppressing, if platforms are doing fact-checking they shouldn't be trying to fact-check me--I have the best research team in the world on these issues--they should be trying to hire me and my team.
Before and during COP 26, I have claimed that it is not a scientific conference but a pseudoscientific, anti-human conference that is pursuing mass-genocide.
The COP 26 Agreement has proven me right. Here are the top 5 reasons the Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human.
👇
Reason 1 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels—the source of 80% of the world’s energy—without addressing the *cost* of doing so. In fact, the word “cost” is not mentioned once in the Agreement!
Reason 2 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores the benefits of low-cost, reliable energy in general and fossil fuels in particular. The word “energy” is not mentioned once, even though COP 26 is trying to eliminate 80% of the world’s energy!
Since the global media have no interest in publicizing the pro-energy activists in poor countries who are challenging COP 26, I will. Here are some comments by @nj_ayuk, head of the Africa Energy Chamber, who points out that "600 million Africans have no lights."
THREAD
"I respect China and Russia who aren’t attending #COP26. They’ve no intention of playing games and will drive up their energy industry while the West impoverishes their citizens through radical action."
--African energy leader @nj_ayuk
"Ironically not attending is better for the planet than the hypocrites arriving by private jets and burning a few million litres of rocket fuel through the atmosphere every 5 minutes to show off to their friends and lecturing Africans to go green immediately..."
--@nj_ayuk
Barack Obama is at COP 26 telling young people "vote like your life depends on it, because it does." That's true, but not the way Obama means it. Hundreds of millions of young people's lives depend on voting against fossil fuel elimination policies. foxnews.com/politics/obama…
The fossil fuel elimination policies Barack Obama is advocating would prevent billions of people, including hundreds of millions of young people, from getting the low-cost, reliable energy they desperately need.
How passing the reconciliation bill will destroy American energy, part 2
The reconciliation bill's 10-year extension and increase of solar and wind subsidies will drive more and more reliable power plants off the grid, lead to skyrocketing prices and frequent blackouts.
THREAD
The reconciliation bill calls for a 10-year extension and increase of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) subsidy for solar and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) subsidy for wind, which pay utilities to slow down or shut down reliable power plants whenever the sun shines or wind blows.
Solar+wind cannot provide the reliable energy that our amazing electrical grid requires 24/7. That’s why every place in the world that uses unreliable solar+wind depends 24/7 on massive amounts of reliable energy from coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear plants.
At COP 26, politicians and celebrities are calling for the world to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels because otherwise we will pass the dreaded 1.5°C threshold of warming.
But we should not fear 1.5°C--we should fear the genocidal consequences of eliminating fossil fuels.
THREAD
A goal of limiting warming to 1.5° since the 1800s has no scientific basis whatsoever. The 1800s were a very cold time (Little Ice Age) and the 1°C warming since then has coincided with the greatest improvement in human life in history—in large part due to fossil fuels.
When people talk about 1.5°C of warming as catastrophic, it's even more absurd than it sounds because it's not 1.5°C warming starting now, it's 1.5°C total since the 1800s. Which means 0.5°C warmer than now--in a world where far more people die of cold than of heat.