Trump Energy Choices Saving America From Economic Disaster

The mandated “transition” to highly subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing wind and solar electricity – relentlessly evangelized by leftist, woke, career bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalists, and corporate titans, using: 1) the federally subsidized Corporate Media as a foghorn to pacify/deceive the people, and 2) using the IPCC hoax of saving humanity from the perils of climate change, to perpetrate a financial scam by moneyed elites, at the expense of all others.

But far from being a solution, the movement proved a perilous misadventure, fundamentally misaligned with real-world energy demands.

.

For decades, fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – alongside hydro and nuclear power, have met global energy needs with unmatched efficiency.

Together, they account for about 84% of global energy consumption, a figure that has barely budged despite decades of green rhetoric and $TRILLIONS of subsidies.

.

Unlike wind and solar, coal and nuclear plants can churn out electricity, rain or shine, 24/7/365.

The amount of land and materials required for such production is but a fraction of what windmills and solar panels take to produce equal amounts of electricity.

.

Oil and natural gas provide fuel for nearly all transportation and serve as chemical feedstock for a 10s of thousands of products ranging from pharmaceuticals to ubiquitous plastics – roles that so-called renewables are incapable of filling. How would we have asphalt roads?

The reliability and versatility of hydrocarbons are not luxuries, but necessities. If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have to invent them.

.

The woke, non-technical, eco-warriors often gloss over these realities, assuming that technological breakthroughs will magically bridge the gap. But hope is not a strategy.

.

Germany, the UK, California in big Green Do-do, with stagnant GDPs and stagnant real wages

Germany’s Energiewende, started in 2000, a very expensive experiment in wind and solar electricity, has delivered the highest electricity prices in Germany and the UK, causing them to become uncompetitive in world markets – and required a continued use of coal and gas plants to back up the intermittent/variable production of wind and solar, plus many thousands of miles of connections to nearby grids.

.

In the United States, California’s overly aggressive push for solar and wind has led to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills, plus several very large fires of battery systems that burned for days, because they could not be extinguished, due to physical danger to firemen.

Germany, the UK and California are prime examples of woke-ideology liberal arts majors, leftist lawyers and self-serving politicians squashing any sane energy planning by STEM professionals.

.

Germany, the UK and California are not anomalies, but a preview of a disastrous future for many other countries.

A government-mandated switch to wind and solar is unaffordable for the modern world, and highly unaffordable for the developing world with low living standards.

.

Energy is not a one-size-fits-all proposition

Nations are endowed with unique resources, and their energy strategies must reflect the differences.

.

Canada, for instance, harnesses its mighty rivers to generate over 60% of its annual electricity from hydropower (in Quebec it is over 90%) – a capacity that wind and solar could never achieve.

France’s fleet of nuclear reactors produces over 70% of the country’s power, a model of efficiency that sunlight and breezes can never match.

The Middle East, sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves, powers itself and much of the world with fuels that remain indispensable for transportation and manufacturing.

.

This diversity is not a flaw to be corrected, but a strength to be embraced.

India’s coal reserves, for example, are a lifeline for a nation where 300 million impoverished people still lack reliable electricity.

Switching to imported solar panels, or God-forbid hydrogen, would not only drain its finances, but also cede energy security/sovereignty to foreign suppliers.

.

Customized energy strategies, predominantly rooted in fossil fuels and nuclear, leverage available resources and efficient technologies without massive solar and wind installations, that smother arable land and destroy scenic vistas.

.

Beyond economics, tailored energy strategies bolster national sovereignty.

Relying on local fossil fuels and nuclear plants means greater sovereignty and less dependence on foreign supply chains – a critical edge in an unstable world.

.

The green agenda demands conformity

Every nation had to adopt the same  Paris-inspired playbook – mainly solar and wind – regardless of local realities.

Poor nations, in particular, require flexibility to develop economically.

Green mandates would prevent their economic development, and extend their financial bondage to Western companies.

.

The Green New Deal was a hoax, a dangerous dogma, masquerading as progress.

Fossil fuels and nuclear power must remain central to the global energy mix, not because they are traditional but because they are rational and needed..

The green fantasy is a product of Corporate Media hyped hubris.

The Trump administration is abandoning this fantasy by leaps and bounds

It is embracing energy sources that are abundant, affordable and attuned to the world as it is, rather than as the deluded woke folks wish it to be.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-hard-hitting-comm...