Donald Trump's outspoken criticism of wind energy highlights a larger global debate over the role of renewable sources in energy production. He identifies windmills as "economic and environmental disasters," focusing on their reliance on massive government subsidies. This perspective raises concerns about the feasibility and sustainability of wind energy, especially in regions where fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy market.
In his remarks, Trump suggested that the market for wind energy is manipulated to favor operators of wind farms, allowing them to generate profits without assuming the risks typically associated with business ventures. He pointed out that this creates an unfair economic landscape, where substantial financial resources are diverted toward projects that he believes do not deliver on their promises. This critique evokes questions about the effectiveness of energy policies and how they align with economic growth.
As the Australian government grapples with its energy strategy, the comments made by Trump have brought renewed attention to the debate on renewable versus traditional energy sources. Many Australians are concerned about the potential implications of shifting away from established energy sources, such as coal and gas, towards unproven renewables. The call for a balanced energy policy that takes into account both economic viability and environmental impact may dictate Australia's future approach to energy sourcing.
In a recent statement, former President Donald Trump expressed his firm opposition to wind energy, describing it as an economic and environmental disaster. He stated, "Windmills should be torn down," referencing their adverse effects and reliance on government subsidies. According to Trump, the installation of wind turbines is ruining the scenic beauty of coastal areas in Australia, such as Port Stevens. He criticized the government for supporting wind energy, arguing that it leads to economic inefficiency and environmental damage. Furthermore, he pointed out that while wind energy contributes only 14% of Australia's electricity market, coal still holds a commanding 60% share, asserting that fossil fuels remain essential for reliable power.Great to see this hysteria being countered. The simple fact is that “renewables” (which aren’t) will NEVER replace fossils fuels completely. Why? Because we could never build enough batteries to cover the intermittency. The technology just isn’t there and Snowy 2.0 is a disastrous failure. And if the “climate emergency “ proves to be correct, guess what? We’ll ADAPT, like we, as a species always do. We’ll build much stronger, better insulated homes. We’ll make stronger, less weather-vulnerable power grids. And we’ll modify our work patterns, our social customs and even our dress to operate in higher temperatures. Then, one great day, some brilliant scientists and engineers will make power generation by nuclear fusion feasible and we’ll then have cheap, virtually unlimited power available forever (as long as there is matter available).
The skies are gray and wind not blowing in Germany so it has been buying expensive electricity from Frances nuke plants since Germany closed their nuke plants. Again since it is winter again.
since they’ve been putting those windmills out in the ocean the whales have been showing up dead
Lol Donald Trump claimed men can grab women by there genitalia at will also.. Will skys hosts be offering up their women for a trump grab...? 😆😆😆