“We are fast approaching the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.” (Ayn Rand)

“What the bill is really about is giving more artificial advantage to electric vehicles over the internal combustion engine. Higher the prices, the better, while deflecting the blame to Big Oil.”

When it comes to energy, the California government has termite aspirations. Having wounded its electricity grid with centrally planned wind and solar reliance, the state is legislating vile-and-spite toward the mainstays of the transportation sector: gasoline and diesel.

Consumer preference for the most affordable, plentiful, dependable energies? No standing in this state. Taxpayer neutrality? Absent. Government knows best, with today’s intervention adding to the issues created by prior intervention.

Already, taxes and other mandates have made the Golden State’s pump prices the highest in the country: $4.83/gallon, almost 40 percent higher than the national average.…

“I am actually a geologist and a republican but your spread of misinformation is disgusting. Anything for a buck. But you know what Rob? Karma is a bitch.” (Howard to Bradley, below)

“Hate speech? Sounds like you cannot handle the arguments against wind and solar and batteries. What about consumers, taxpayers, and basic energy freedom? Classical liberalism and the free market are obviously not your thing. But don’t get angry about it.” (Bradley to Howard, below)

An unpleasant exchange on social media began with my response to a post from DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm (or one of her handlers):

If there was one takeaway I hope folks took from #CERAWeek last week, it’s that America’s energy future and energy security depends on every sector working in concert to ensure we are prepared to meet and lead the moment.

“But make no mistake, [Bradley]’s as venomous an antinuke as the most biased Greenpeacer.” (Colin Hunt, Canadian Nuclear Society)

Social media exchanges are educational and informative. Going head-to-head with an intellectual foe is a great opportunity to learn and unmask error–and to find out what you do not know. I report, you decide on the exchanges below, which get into some basic issues and the history of a troubled, government-subsidized technology.

——————

This LinkedIn exchange began with a post by Chris Keefer, Physician and President Canadians for Nuclear Energy:

Nuclear to the rescue. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Nuclear is best suited to replace many fossil fuel services. When fossil fuels become constrained nuclear doesn’t just become attractive, it becomes inevitable.

I responded as follows:

New nuclear capacity is just way too expensive and complicated compared to the alternatives.

“After advertising its efforts to produce environmentally friendly fuels from algae for over a decade, Exxon Mobil Corp. is now quietly walking away from its most heavily publicized climate solution.” (below)

Biofuel is out, leaving carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the leave-us-alone, we-are-doing-our-part “greenwashing” strategy at ExxonMobil (see tomorrow’s post). The end of algae as a substitute for crude oil comes after $350 million and 14 years of commitment. This expenditure was joined by a “green” advertising campaign around the project of at least $60 million, mostly spent between 2017 and 2019.

It was predictable. Shell, BP, and Chevron had previously thrown in the biofuels towel. And it is reminiscent of Exxon’s failed ventures in the 1970s: Office equipment. Real estate. Synthetic fuels. Shale oil. Electric motors.…