Share this page!

Enter Twitter Thread URL to Unroll

Needs to be the full URL like: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on Twitter App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
JesseJenkins Profile picture
@JesseJenkins
Jan 26, 2018 • 13 tweets • 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
This shit drives me so nuts.

Friends, here is @MassSierraClub...

1. Says "Climate change is an existential threat facing humanity and many other species." sierraclub.org/massachusetts/…

(It is)
2. Calls for Pilgrim #nuclear plant near Plymouth MA to be "shut immediately" because planned 2019 closures isn't soon enough. sierraclub.org/massachusetts/…

Would immediately result in loss of 1 of New England's largest sources of CO2-free power & 4.2% of region's annual electricity.
3. Now opposes Northern Pass transmission project & procurement of 9.45 TWh of hydropower from Quebec sierraclub.org/press-releases…

That project would bring in enough hydro to replace all of Pilgrim's lost generation + supply another 3.6% of NE's electricity, helping drive down CO2.
4. Says we should instead meet all of our clean energy needs with "energy efficiency and conservation to solar panel installations, carpooling, transit use, and electric vehicles." sierraclub.org/massachusetts/…

Huh? How does carpooling reduce demand for clean electricity? Less EVs?
5. Seems ignorant of fact that generating 9.45 TWh of clean electricity from local solar in Mass would require about 6,700 MW of new solar projects, >3.5 times greater than all installed solar in state to date. And that solar output isn't a replacement for 24-7 nuclear output.
6. At current utility-scale solar costs, that 6,700 MW of solar in Mass would cost about $12 billion, or 7.5x the $1.2b Northern Pass line. If we built it as rooftop solar as I'm sure Mass. Sierra Club prefers (hyperlocal!) it would cost ~$20-24 billion or 12-13x Northern Pass.
7. That's in round terms about $10-20 billion we ARENT spending on procuring MORE clean energy to drive down emissions in New England FASTER and confront the EXISTENTIAL THREAT that is posed by climate change.
9. And we'd STILL need to keep gas & oil-fired peaker plants running in New England to provide the firm capacity we get from Pilgrim now, would get from Northern Pass/Quebec Hydro, and would not be provided by 9.45 TWh of solar power.
10. In sum: When are local @SierraClub chapters (+ other like-minded enviros) going to treat #climate change like the urgent global crisis they claim to believe it is?! Actions speak louder than press releases! We need ALL the clean energy we can get. Yesterday. Clock's ticking.
tl dr? 👇
p.s. Sorry for swearing. I don't usually do that on Twitter. It's been a long day.
p.p.s. Context: Vermont Yankee closed in 2014. It halted 5 consecutive yrs of CO2 cuts in New England & increased CO2 from power 5%. Yankee is slightly smaller than Pilgrim, so that's what we're dealing with if Pilgrim closes without timely replacement. bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/…
p.p.p.s. Sierra Club's Mark Kresowik responded to the above thread via email, which (in the interest of equal airtime) I've posted for him via my Twitter account at this link. Please read:

• • •

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

Keep Current with JesseJenkins

JesseJenkins 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!

PDF

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 @JesseJenkins

JesseJenkins Profile picture
Sep 21, 2018
A new OECD report finds carbon pricing policies are spreading worldwide, but are almost uniformly too low to fully capture damages caused by CO2 or drive needed emissions declines. Here's a thread on why carbon pricing falls short and what we might do about it…
Using a social cost of carbon -- the estimate of societal damage caused by one ton of CO2 -- of €30/ton, the OECD finds that almost 90% of total global CO2 emissions are priced at a level below the damages they cause. About 55% of global emissions are not priced at all.
The OECD calculates the "carbon pricing gap" -- or the cumulative sum of each ton of global emissions times the gap between the carbon price applied to that ton and the €30/ton social cost of carbon estimates -- is 76.5%.
Read 39 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Sep 11, 2018
Important memo to journalists & others reporting on passage of #SB100, California's clean electricity law signed by Gov. Brown yesterday.

What law does: requires 100% of CA electricity sales supplied by "eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources" by 2045.
What the law does *not* require:
(a) 100% renewable electricity (it specifies renewables AND "zero-carbon resources")
(b) elimination of fossil fuels from electricity (it requires carbon-free, not no fossil)
(c) 100% clean *energy* (the law is about electricity, not all energy)
I have read stories making all of the above statements in the past 24 hours, all of which are incorrect. The bill is deliberately focused on achieving 100% "carbon-free" electricity and is intentionally flexible. It will be up to state agencies to define "zero-carbon" further.
Read 12 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Sep 6, 2018
With legislation committing California to 100% carbon-free electricity sitting on Gov. Brown’s desk, I wanted to share a timely new peer-reviewed article out today in the journal, @Joule_CP: cell.com/joule/fulltext…
In the paper, @nsepulvedam, @FdeSisternes, Prof. Richard Lester and I use detailed power system modeling to identify strategies that lower the costs and increase the odds of reaching a zero-carbon electricity grid. Check out MIT News coverage of the paper: technologyreview.com/s/611987/how-c…
After ~1,000 cases covering possible future tech cost, regional diffs in renewables quality & demand, and different limits on CO2, our study consistently demonstrates the best way to zero out electricity emissions is to deploy a balanced mix of low-carbon electricity sources.
Read 52 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Apr 26, 2018
Everything in this thread by @jacob_mays is correct (and also calmy and clearly articulated). Contrary to @ShellenbergerMD's thesis, there are no physical reasons why wind or solar power must increase electricity costs.
Michael's first (of two controversial) posts on renewables driving up electricity costs forbes.com/sites/michaels… contains several grains of truth (eg the declining value of wind/solar as they scale) but it doesn't connect the right dots either.
Michael misses the main obvious reason why wind or solar *may* have driven up electricity rates in some places (eg Germany, Denmark, California): while renewables have gotten MUCH cheaper in the last few years, they are subsidy independent in few places and only recently...
Read 14 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Apr 25, 2018
THREAD: There’s a commonly held view that nuclear power and wind & solar mix like oil and water. Inflexible, always-on nuclear, the idea goes, is ill-suited for a world where wind and solar output vary on timescales ranging from seconds to hours to seasons. 1/
In reality, while nuclear plants traditionally provide steady output 24-7, reactors are technically capable of much greater flexibility and can dynamically adjust their power output to respond to changing electricity prices and second-to-second frequency regulation needs. 2/
That flexibility is about to become a much more valuable capability as renewable energy penetration increases in power systems across the world, according to my latest research... 3/
energy.mit.edu/news/keeping-t…
Read 32 tweets
JesseJenkins Profile picture
Apr 13, 2018
Good questions @RedsforNamesake. If confronting #climate change is your priority, it is imperative to ramp up carbon-free energy asap.

1. NJ will now ramp up renewable energy from 13% in 2017 and 20% by 2020 under old RPS to 35% by 2025 & 50% by 2030. Impressive leadership.
2. To ensure that this new clean energy replaces fossil fuels and contributes to #climate mitigation goals, NJ's new laws also make payments to ensure the continued operation of 3 South Jersey nuclear reactors that currently supply 31% of the state's electricity consumption.
2. Cont.: That measure is essential and ensures that nearly all of the new clean energy growth over the next 12 years builds on top of the fossil-free foundation provided by the state's existing nuclear plants.
Read 14 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(