President Donald Trump bashed nemesis - and potential 2024 rival - Gov. Larry Hogan (R), and cast doubt on election integrity in the state of Maryland, in a wide-ranging stump speech on a tele-rally for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Dan Cox last night. Settling political scores from coast-to-coast, Trump had just finished campaigning against another never-Trump GOP critic, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in Alaska. Turning his attention back to Hogan in Maryland, Trump zeroed in for the first time on one of the most-controversial issues in Hogan's term, the governor's purchase of South Korean COVID-19 testing kits. The kits arrived with much fanfare, as Hogan suggested he was providing what Trump would or could not, but were later deemed an $11.9 million bust by state health officials who found them unusable.
36,735 voters joined the tele-rally by phone last night, the Cox campaign reports. At the conclusion of the call, a poll was taken in the Maryland governor race. Perhaps not surprisingly on a Cox phone event, Cox won the poll with 85.2% of the vote. More surprisingly, Trump drilled down with more-specific criticism of Hogan's tenure, and for the first time challenged Maryland election integrity.
Cox opened the call by challenging the narrative that he will not have bipartisan appeal in the general election. He argued that his support stretches "across party lines. [E]ven the Democrats, thirty percent of them are saying that this is exactly what they want. Because, why? Because their issues are children, careers, and community safety. That is what is driving us right now. That's what our economy is showing everyone. They go to the pump, and they see that their careers are in jeopardy, they're paying a third of their income for gasoline right now. They're looking at rising taxation, and they're looking at the inflation that's eating up their grocery budget.
"And then they look at their children going to school here in Maryland, and what do you have? You have really egregious things being taught behind the parents' backs. They have women's sports being degraded. They have really a problem with divisive anti-Americanism."
"Our great police officers are under attack. I've been defending them in the [Maryland House] Judiciary Committee. I passed, I helped pass, the bill for $10 million dollars for more police in Baltimore City with Hopkins University."
"That's why I am so honored, and just privileged beyond belief, that President Donald J. Trump would join us tonight. [H]e's stood for us. He's a patriot. He's a gentleman who has graciousness to everyone, and unbelievable fortitude. He stands for our values, our liberties, and our freedom."
Cox then turned the call over to Trump, who began by speaking warmly of the Old Line State. "Hello, Maryland. It's a great state. I have so many friends there. I love the place. We're going to work really hard to do something special with Dan."
Trump exhorted voters to turn out at the polls Tuesday, in what is expected to be a low turnout primary amidst summer vacations. "I'd like each of you to get out and vote, bring your friends and bring everybody you can." As expected, Trump lashed current Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who has hammered Trump and is exploring a potential run against him in the 2024 presidential race.
"You'll get rid of a lousy governor," Trump said of Hogan, who was in New Hampshire this week to lay the groundwork for a 2024 campaign. "You're gonna get rid of somebody that was just, I think he was absolutely terrible, the job he did. He's just absolutely terrible, and a terrible representative of the state."
Trump again lauded Cox as a "respected and tough lawyer, a smart businessman." And he again denounced Hogan-endorsed Republican candidate Kelly Schulz as a "RINO. Her boss, Larry Hogan, locked down your state, destroyed your freedoms and turned his back on the great people of Maryland. He did it as bad as the Democrats. He locked the place up."
"You don't want his annointed successor," Trump warned. "He's working hard to get her in. And anybody he wants, frankly, I'd be against just on that basis alone."
Trump touted new poll results favorable to Cox, which he said he had just seen before the call. "Dan, I'm happy to tell you the poll is very good," Trump said. "But we can't rely on that. You have to get out and vote. He's the only candidate who has my complete and total endorsement. I've gotten to know him. He's a winner and he's a great guy. He loves the state, and he loves the country."
"Dan will work hard to stop inflation, bring back lower gas prices - can you believe what's happened?" Trump asked, reflecting on how low gas prices were during his term. "We were at $1.87. Now it's going to be well over $5.00, I understand, over the next couple of weeks...But we had it down to the right number, and everybody was happy. Everybody was happy about everything."
Trump then segued into further reminiscing about his time in the Oval Office versus the current state of affairs. "Even if you talk about Russia going into Ukraine, that would have never happened if I was in office...So many things have happened, so bad." He bashed President Joe Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. "We left Americans behind, thirteen soldiers were killed, many, many horribly injured. And, of course, leaving $85 billion dollars' worth of the best military equipment in the world [in the hands of the Taliban]."
"We were independent, everybody was happy," Trump recalled of America's energy output during his term. "Right now, as we speak, [Biden is] going to Saudi Arabia begging - a country that is unthinkable that he would go to - begging for oil."
Trump promised that, as governor, Cox would "stand up to the radical left-wing mayors and local officials who are destroying your Democratic-run cities, and restore law and order to Maryland. He'll cut taxes - very big. I gave you the largest tax cut in the history of our country, larger than even the Reagan tax cuts." Trump then further touted his own record of cutting regulations, record job growth, and reaching reciprocal trade agreements with foreign partners.
While dicussing foreign trade, Trump reflected on his relationship with former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated last week. Trump called Abe "a wonderful gentleman...a great, great gentleman. He was a fantastic man, I'm so sad to see that happen."
Turning back to Maryland, Trump assured callers that Cox would "stop the radical left's war on the American family. He'll ban critical race theory. He'll champion school choice, and he'll keep men out of women's sports. A lot of people - and it's not politically correct to say that, but we'll say it - he'll keep men out of women's sports."
Cox would call for a "full, forensic audit" of the 2020 presidential election, Trump said, before casting doubt on election integrity in Maryland. "I know the state so well, I know so many people. I don't believe the elections are straight in the state...Dan's looking into it very strongly."
"I know him. I like him. He loves that state, and he loves our country, and he'll work harder than anybody you've seen, and he's going to do a fantastic job," Trump said in making a closing argument for Cox, before turning his ire back to Hogan. "You're losing somebody who is not a good representative of your state, and certainly not a good Republican," he said of Hogan. "I can tell you that from personal experience."
Trump said his administration had provided much to Hogan during the pandemic, "and we got nothing but negative statements [in return]." He noted Hogan's controversial purchase of COVID-19 tests from a South Korean firm that turned out to be virtually useless. "What he did with the testing, how bad it was, and where the tests came from, from South Korea - there's a whole lot of things that Hogan did that are terrible, and he was just not a good representative. Dan Cox will be fantastic."
"I'll see you soon, we love your state. Bye, everybody," Trump said before leaving the call.
Photo courtesy WhiteHouse.gov
41 comments:
Why so much promotion of Trump these days?
He'll be in jail soon.
A Cox win in the primaries essentially GUARANTEES that whichever Democrat is on the ballot on November will win. They wouldn't even have to run a single campaign ad with this clown running. It would probably be the most lopsided statewide election history. Schulz would also be an underdog because she lacks Hogan's 2018 incumbency advantage, the Dem's aren't likely to be complacent like in 2014, and she doesn't have the name recognition Hogan had before he was governor. But she has MUCH better odds than Cox, especially if the "red wave" materializes. Trump's endorsement is not an asset in MD when he performed worse here than nearly every other state. Trump lost TWO red counties on the Eastern Shore to Biden.
And the comment about rigged elections in MD is laughable especially with a Republican governor who has fought tooth and nail to redraw the District fairer to GOP candidates.
Every time Trump opens his mouth he shows the simpleton that he really is. Larry Hogan is "terrible because he's terrible and he did a terrible job and is a terrible representative" That's some deep insight right there. And "everybody was happy. Everybody was happy about everything" Yeah especially in 2020 which is the worst year in US history by nearly every measure since the Great Depression.
Trump really has tarnished the GOP to the point that its members stand for almost nothing virtuous anymore. Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker are basically the only remaining common sense Republicans in power.
GOP Hogan botching the order of COVID tests barely amounts to a microscopic blemish compared to Trump's lies inane Tweets corruption and lawbreaking. When your own SELF-APPOINTED cabinet threatens to quit over your treason that should set off some alarms in your head.
I doubt that even most Republicans claiming that the election was rigged truly believe that (except maybe nuts like Cox and Greene who are certified idiots). They just repeat the bs talking points because they're terrified of losing Trump's thoroughly brainwashed supporters.
And the Democratic party is in hardly better shape since its also been hijacked by radical extremists (on the left). It would be nice if we had a third party. Right now are international rivals are laughing at and taking advantage of our internal political turmoil. Not to mention the ever growing mega-corporations and multi-billionaires like Musk and Bezos that continue to and screw ALL OF US regardless of political party.
We will never see an American president in jail, but we may see some of his cronies and family members locked up.
Trump lives in 12:04's mind rent free. Get help.
Hogan was in New Hampshire in the past 24 hours doing early presidential campaigning. No doubt he is running.
12:35 can only be referring to the Biden crime family because democrat AG's along with a special prosecutor couldn't find anything on Trump. No democrat would be able to survive the scrutiny handed out by them or the press because there's no privilege like democrat privilege.
12:34 is speaking from the vacuum chamber of a blue state and doesn't understand "flyover country" at all.
12:44 PM - 12:04 PM here.
Dude, I wasn't the one who posted two articles in the past three days about the disgraced former president on a local news site.
Trump's supporters love to talk about Trump but don't seem to want anyone else to talk about him.
It's insane that Trump is so openly hostile towards democracy and his supporters simply don't care. They wrap themselves in American flags and call themselves patriots, but couldn't care less about the foundations of our political system.
@12:34
Election being literally "rigged" is irrelevant: tens of millions of mail-in ballots were sent out with zero security or confirmation when dropped into ballot dropboxes. The election was decided by some 20,000 of those mail-in-dropbox ballots.
No one knows and no one can know how many fraudulent mail-in ballots were cast. But we do know that 2020 was the least secure election in American history.
"And the Democratic party is in hardly better shape since its also been hijacked by radical extremists (on the left)."
You have got to be joking. The Democratic party is so vanilla their signature accomplishments this decade are an infrastructure plan and 1 year of increasing the Child Tax Credit. US voters are going to reject them in the fall if they remain too moderate, not because they've been too extreme. And even if progressive "extremists" were to take control of the party, their agenda of universal healthcare, abortion access, higher minimum wage, assault weapons ban, DoD cuts, millionaire's tax, etc. are nothing comparable to what the illiberal, anti-democratic GOP is doing to this country.
Every accusation an admission. MAGA/GOP can barely voice a burp that isn't saturated with psychological projection. SAD!
4:09, 5:15, 9:28 & 9:40 obviously don't read outside their little circle fest of propaganda media.
Since January 2021, Republicans have no power in congress or the WH. So what do "vanilla" liberals do? Try to punish those standing in the way of absolute power by trying to get rid of the filibuster having no memory of Reid using the "nuclear option" on judicial appointments. Didn't work out they way liberals thought it would and Trump had three SCOTUS picks. So what do liberals do now? Push for court expansion and push for further elimination of the filibuster. They always think the minority will never be back in power so for short-term gain they're willing to blow up The Constitution to get their little pet projects passed. Newtons 2nd law verbiage applies here. Try actually reading The Constitution along with The Bill of Rights because the liberal alternative is Venezuela, Cuba or worse China.
Love how democrats these days try to paint themselves as mainstream moderates when most their actions since 2016 have been wrecking the power grid, (check out Sri Lanka & Ghana), with renewables that just aren't ready, killing off domestic energy production, opening the border to illegals including drug & sex traffickers, defunding police while releasing career criminals AND their obsession to make sure that the most successful president in recent history can't run again. Doesn't sound very moderate nor is it working, yet here they are like a blind bus driver on mountain road telling everyone that things are going well.
I get it, MSM has told liberals to hate those who stand in their way, (like Manchin and Sinema), but I would argue that those two have saved democrats from themselves. November is coming so be careful what you wish for.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Brilliant reply, 3:23. I have no doubt you are gravely concerned with Sri Lanka's power grid. When you see then at the torchlight rally, be sure to tell Amy C-B, Brett "Beer Me!" K, and the rest of Team Theocrat how awesomely you owned the libs with your post.
If 6:04 bothered to read about what happened there they might realize the true failures of the green energy push and what it means to developed countries trying to do the same thing. But then again, trying to educate closed-minded liberals with common sense is always an exercise in futility.
I realize the extent of your energy concerns stops at the light switch in your bedroom but the economy is built on fossil fuels and when liberals curtailed nuclear and pushed renewables beyond its capabilities the choices are clear.
Robert -
Your blog is so informative and a relief from the news. How about sticking to the neighborhood info and ditching the political stuff?
thanks!
Hmmm. . . "pushed renewables beyond its capabilities." That doesn't sound terribly forward-thinking or optimistic.
The Wright brothers really should have known better than to insist on forging beyond the laws of gravity. What were inventors thinking, trying to do better, to improve on the present. The Stanley Steamer was the fastest car on the road in the 1890s, pegging the odometer at 35mph. Who were those impudent upstarts who thought they could do better and evolve the state of things?
That's okay, 7:26, just keep clinging to yesteryear's technologies and to the --finite, dwindling-- fossil fuel sources needed to power them. That way, we can avoid developing new, alternative energy sources that don't also risk wiping out large cities in the bargain. Yeah, comparatively speaking, that new energy tech pretty much sucks currently. Do you think it better we *not* hunt now for alternative safe power sources? Since the alt tech takes time to evolve, should we not get that ball/those balls rolling *now,* instead of waiting for the fossil fuels to hit "Empty?" If you don't commit to building a foundation, imperfect though it may be, how can there possibly be any chance of the tech evolving or improving? How does science/tech learn and develop if it must start out the gate already perfect?
Is this how you approach life, Athena-like, sprung full-grown from the head of Zeus, engaging nothing unless you step forth the best-- a superlative, flawless specimen? Your pond must be small, indeed.
7:11's Failure to understand the entire picture is frustrating but not at all surprising given the indoctrination and close-minded thought process to actually believe what they wrote. Always absurd extensions trying to make a point without any actual facts.
Is "pushed beyond its capabilities" untrue? The electrical grid in Texas should have been a clue. Regulators in CA warned officials about over reliance on solar on 2020 and look what happened. Worse is the green push in Europe which is going to create rolling blackouts and limited heat this coming winter in addition to reduced crop and animal production.
Germany has just declared nuclear as green and liberals heads popped off. France has been doing it for decades without headline problems. The example of Sri Lanka is valid as it demonstrates the green push at the expense of famine and lack of energy. But they have a green score in the mid 90's, (just ignore the people starving and the country thrown back into the stone age).
The extent of liberals knowledge these days is essentially a virtue signalling parade with no thoughts on the consequences. Your EV has done more damage to the environment than the soccer mom driving the Suburban. I could easily explain but a closed mind is the largest handicap one can have so time spent explaining is simply wasted. Just for fun, Google where Cobalt comes from.
When renewables are ready and don't require the huge reduction in the standard of living or production punishment to the environment I'm all in. Until that time ignorance and apathy are not a good look for you.
7:11, the problem with your theory is that you can't start phasing out the old technology until the new tech is sufficiently online to cover the need. But Biden is too beholden to the Greta Thunberg wing of the Dem party. Also lose the smug attitude.
Dear 5:23,
The "problem" you suggest is precisely what I'm saying @7:11. New tech needs to get up to speed and be developed sufficiently *before* fossil fuel runs out, not *after.* We need to invest in, test, improve, develop the alt energies now. In our "money talks" world, the best way to encourage improvements on tech is to show there's a market for it, by deploying the devices, which allows everyone to gauge market interest. "Company A's version is languishing, but Company D's technology is getting traction." That inspires inventors to build their better mousetraps and say, "I've made improvements to [Company D's] tech. Now it's even better." Those advances won't come by locking tech in labs until the world agrees the science has evolved to its zenith.
7:26 seems to think it's a better idea to run out the fossil fuel supply before investigating and investing in alternative energy, which seems akin to driving your car until it runs out of gas, *then* looking for fuel.
@12:26 - Your analogy makes the same assumptions as 7:11 in that a true statement, "the economy is based on fossil fuels", does not imply not looking for new technology to supercede and/or replace those forms of energy. It did imply, (using a better analogy), not cutting your nose to spite your face which is exactly what's happening now.
Looking at the future, consider projects like ITER in France which will eventually replace their standard nuclear power reactors. There's also another design using a smaller helix but a conversation for another day.
What liberals are pushing now is essentially energy and food austerity, (Ask the Dutch farmers about that). No one is saying fossil fuels only until we run out but going all-in without backup will cause a humanitarian disaster.
Trump was the best president
Hogan is a Rino as is Lisa muckuowski
Cox and Trump
MMgA
After 2 years of turnip brain in the WH driving up inflation gas and food while driving down401k how can anyone ever vote democrat again
Are you that rich to destroy your childrens futures?
Speaking of disasters: TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
11:47 Should actually read some history of those disasters and see why countries like France are so committed to nuclear and is the current solution to limiting greenhouse emissions without bankrupting economies.
@11:47, thank you for suggesting I read more about France's commitment to nuclear energy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/
"Nuclear power plants have actually pulled off one of the most remarkable feats of recent technological history: Where virtually all other technologies have gotten cheaper over time as they have developed and matured, nuclear power has actually become more expensive. Indeed, it has grown dauntingly costly compared with renewables: at least four times as costly as utility-scale solar and onshore wind power. While the cost of solar and wind energy generation, as well as battery storage, plummets by the year—in 2020 alone, onshore wind costs declined by 13 percent and those of utility-scale solar photovoltaics by 7 percent—the bill for new nuclear sites climbs upward.
"The price of nuclear generation today is inordinate: a rip-off in terms of value, to put it bluntly. Indeed, while safety concerns drive up the cost of nuclear plant insurance, the price of renewables is predicted to sink further, by as much as 50 percent or more by 2030. This price trend is one reason why in 2020 total investment in new renewable electricity surpassed $300 billion, 17 times global investment in nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. No nuclear reactors anywhere are built without enormous government support, and France will be no different: The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times."
And of course the small matter of what to do with the spent fuel:
"And then there’s the now 80-year-old conundrum of how and where to dispose of radioactive waste. To date, no secure repositories are in operation anywhere in the world for the spent fuel, which remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Experts estimate that more than 250,000 metric tons of radioactive waste—over 14,000 metric tons in France and 90,000 metric tons in the United States—is currently in temporary storage near nuclear power plants and military production facilities worldwide."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/
Nuclear sounds ever more like a winner!
The left has seen fit to give everyone windmills and solar and ignore the problems when the grid fails. Now compare Germany with France in light of Russia's proposed cut-off of natural gas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/18/nuclear-energy-climate-france-germany/
But let's spend trillions to tackle climate change by using renewables that pillage the environment with strip mines and exploiting the local population when the actual measured benefits aren't there. Think your EV is green? Where do you think Nickel, Cobalt and Lithium come from? Check out who owns a large percentage of those mines and the damage caused by extraction not to mention the fossil fuel expended to do so.
https://www.econtalk.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change/
So putting all your eggs in the renewables basket that is dependent on factors no one can control doesn't sound like a winner at all. Since liberals are willing to take the risk without fossil fuels or nuclear, when the grid demand exceeds supply they should be the first to volunteer to turn off their power first.
Regarding nuclear waste:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/nuclear-power-has-a-nuclear-waste-problem-heres-how-to-fix-it/
Also the future looks much better with Fusion, (ITER reactor), which doesn't have the long term waste issues fission does.
Oh goodness. I try to stay out of this but now people are quoting political hack pieces and fusion?
I am an energy technology and policy professional. I have worked with all forms of energy. Here’s the deal: nuclear fuel recycling doesn’t eliminate the waste issue, it changes it. You wind up with much more dangerous materials and still have all your leftover low- and mid-level stuff. Are there benefits to that approach for the fuel cycle? Possibly… but it doesn’t eliminate the need to actually store the stuff *forever* at some point.
And ITER? Oh my gosh. Nuclear fusion has always been 20 years away, and always will be. It has nothing to do with nuclear fission, and is not just a logical next step. The ITER facility has cost tens of billions of dollars, and only proven how unreasonable it is to assume that humans can contain in a building on earth a physical process who’s only natural analog is that of a star. Fusion is just the latest “too cheap to meter” fraud… the last of which was nuclear fission.
As for renewables, their time is here. They are the lowest cost energy resource; they are ubiquitous; and the technologies to convert and capture their energy into electricity are reliable. The “variability” issue can be handled by the same electric grid that was originally built by Samuel Insull more than 100 years go to handle the variability of customer behavior.
And if you think Texas was a failure if renewables, you’re wrong. Is was a failure of Texas power plant operators to winterize their fleets. Coal piles froze. Natural gas supplies plummeted. Far more conventional generation (and a nuclear reactor!) tripped offline than renewables.
Facts. They’re sticky little buggers.
An energy and technology policy professional when what you really are is a bureaucratic government lobbyist paid by some "green energy" company akin to Solyndra, which by the way sucked away millions of taxpayer dollars.
What you don't address is the environmental disaster many renewables actually are. In your world, Nickel, Cobalt and Lithium magically appear while China exploits Central Africa. Don't worry about solar panels declining performance and the difficulty recycling them let alone the dirty manufacturing process to make them, (made in China without environmental restrictions). Wind turbines only work when the wind blows, something I guess only you'll guarantee.
So by your argument with the Texas grid, I would make the same argument about the factors that led up to TMI or that they built Chernobyl without a containment structure. No comment on California in 2020 regarding the solar grid? Get this straight, I'm not against renewables but solely relying on them at this point in time is plain stupid.
Facts are sometimes ugly but add apathy and denial, you'll get an unreliable power grid.
You are wrong, conveying assumptions unfounded by the facts, or cherry-picking data without correct or adequate context on just about every front. Further to that, the specious elements and your “what about” argument strategy betray both your source of information and significant bias driven by a political agenda.
I see you didn’t respond to the facts I brought up about the pipe dreams of some magical nuclear fuel cycle eliminating nuclear waste or the challenges (nay, impossibility) of magnetic confinement fusion (ITER), but instead chose to attack me as an expert because in your world having knowledge is only valuable if it come from your approved sources. You talk about mining in Africa and China for rare earth materials, yet fail to mention the devastating environmental impact and footprint of coal mining and oil and gas production as a counterpoint (here’s a pro tip: the embedded environmental damage of the production of durable goods that produce/consume energy is generally insignificant compared to the ongoing environmental damage from consuming fossil fuels through the lifetime of the asset). You cite a declining yield curve of solar panels which matters exactly why? Have you done the market assessments to determine that a fully amortized solar array that still produces electricity at $0 marginal cost is somehow a bad thing, even if it doesn’t still yield nameplate?
And of course, your tribe loves to mention solyndra. Well, if you want to be accurate about that timeframe, congress authorized and intended for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program to have a 25% failure rate. The purpose of that congressional investment was to stimulate innovation and investment in higher-risk projects while helping avoid an economic collapse. And if one looks at the program as a whole, their default rate was far below the 25% budgeted for by congress because when dealing with green technology the risks are almost universally lower than projected (compared to the fossil fuel investments by the same Recovery Act that are all shutting down).
The sad thing for this country and planet is that people like you, who in different centuries have risen against all forms of technical progress to become the laughing stock and punchlines of future generations (see the Luddite rebellion of 1811-13), are now preventing society from making progress on its most pressing issues (energy, climate, and so much more). It’s sad that in our country today those who yell the loudest are now able to prevent progress and drive the world to catastrophe, knowledge and expertise be damned.
The problem with lobbyists is that they're essentially hired guns to push the agenda of their money masters and in this case has made it clear why the push for reliance on a technology that is not reliable or robust enough, at this time, to replace fossil fuels.
The argument that I'm not in favor of R & D shows a lack of reading and comprehension for what was just written but that's what happens when you have tunnel vision in adherence to your goals of your employer. Also, accusing someone of what you're actually doing is a classic tactic of the left as is Reductio ad Absurdum but to be expected. There are no easy answers when liberals need to confront facts of where the "green energy" comes from or how it's produced so attack the one who poses the question.
In the short term to make up for grid shortfalls across the globe due to your green agenda, they're burning more coal than ever. Because the MSM doesn't report it, (and thus you have no idea), there are actual food & fuel shortages which are a direct result of the agenda you're pushing and projected to get much worse this winter. I realize that having an open mind is a violation of your employment but for a second step back and ask yourself if switching to renewables, which are dependent on factors outside of human control, as main source of power without reliable backup is a good idea.
It may take another 20+ years but compared to the environmental issues many "green energy" projects have, it's worth pursuing because putting all of our efforts into a single bucket is shortsighted.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/dream-unlimited-clean-nuclear-fusion-energy-within-reach
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/plasma-physics-laboratory-researchers-ask-has-fusions-day-come
https://www.pppl.gov/news/2022/breakthrough-once-described-impossible-brings-fusion-energy-device-closer-realization-0
https://scitechdaily.com/harnessing-the-power-of-the-sun-on-earth-major-advance-in-stellarator-performance-for-fusion-energy/
Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/27/obamas-green-new-deal-was-a-billion-dollar-bust/
In all the above you have proven my point precisely. You think fusion is some great new technology that is only 20 or so years away? Another pro trip for you: in the energy world, whenever anybody says something is 20 years away it’s an implicit admission that what they’re talking about is either imaginary or impossible to achieve.
Let’s take the idea of fusion, because you’re so enamored. Sure, those are great recent pieces all saying fusion is just a few decades away. Do you know who else said that? John Holdren… in 1978, when he claimed achieving fusion was more realistic and an activity that would be more assuredly successful than the crazy idea of building a space station (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1745724).
Those who claim we need fusion to solve our energy and environmental crisis, and that we cannot do anything else in the meantime, are by definition saying we have to do exactly the same thing we’ve done for the past half century (i.e., keep burning fossil fuels while praying that fusion can save us). As you wrote yourself, hoping for a different outcome is simply insane. Or perhaps you secretly don’t want a different outcome, but enjoy having the ability to say, “I care about the environment, I support fusion!” while simply knowing that will ensure the status quo persists.
Oh wait, I’m sorry. Does the fact that I just highlighted the errors of the Obama Administration’s chief scientist upset your theory of me as a leftist who is politically blinded to facts and reality? Well science and technology are not political, they just are. And the fact is, zero-marginal cost energy resources are at the point in their technical maturity where they are simply more cost effective than any resource that requires people to dig stuff out of the ground, transport it (more than once), refine or otherwise improve it, and then inefficiently burn it. The fact that these zero marginal cost resources happen to be carbon free, water free, and avoid creating perpetual radioactive dangers and security risks is what most people (other than yourself) like to call a win-win.
I like that you think I’m a lobbyist, though. That’s cute.
So by your own argument the Wright Brothers wouldn't take the chance either but that's how liberals like to hold others to a different standard then themselves. By the way, Gore said, in 2006, that we had 10-years before the point of no return.
Fusion is put into the argument as a future possibility and not putting all of one's eggs in a single basket yet bringing it up triggers those who have finacial interests elsewhere. I guess R & D should be reserved for things that you deem worthy. Liberals like you are willing to put renewables as sole source regardless of the consequences. California 2020 and Texas are warning shots but they don't seem to bother you. "More than once" argument applies to renewables as well and ignoring the environmental impact of base elements necessary when calculating "costs" defines your projections.
No one ever claimed that any energy is cost-free but you can't seem to grasp that an economy built on fossil fuels, (61% in 2021), cannot be turned off like a light switch and immediately flipped to renewables. If you can control the wind and the sun, please have at it but until that time, actions have consequences and a reliable power grid is the most important factor.
Like "sanitation engineer", a shill for a standalone energy policy that benefits a sector that dependent on factors outside human intervention is still a lobbyist no matter how you want to dress it up.
Doesn't look like zero marginal cost.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger
Cadmium, Lead, polluted groundwater, who would have a problem with that?
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/solar-waste-a-looming-problem/
“What about… what about… what about…” It’s a tactic your Dear Leader has used time and again to obfuscate and sidetrack. Doesn’t work well here, or for you.
Never said anything about turning off the economy like a light switch. What I wrote is that renewables are technically mature, economically competitive, and to add to that they are diverse in characteristic. Renewables (plural) are more than wind and sun, moron. The category of technologies you like to malign with simplistic and jingoistic sound bites are the very essence of a portfolio strategy built upon a diverse portfolio of primary energy resources and conversion technologies that in their very nature are complementary in characteristics from timescales to geospatial concentration that make an inherently more resilient snd robust power system.
Yet we should all wait to do something good for the planet (and each other) because fusion and other magic billets might come along long after we’re dead and so we shouldn’t have to do anything hard now.
The *most* reliable energy system is a diversified energy system, which is the antithesis of what we have now. That is why price shocks driven by the (unrealized) fear of declining Russian oil and natural gas supplies to a global energy market dominated by just 3 fossils fuels (two of which are coproduced and are functionally interchangeable in important ways) can have such a huge impact on our economy. But that causal relationship between tight supply and global non diversified energy markets seems a bit too complex for you to grasp.
So the “renewables” but represents the true diversification strategy to bring by resilience and robustness to our energy supply, and have been shown to be the *only* category of resources that actually bring energy prices down.
But sure, remind people that the sun goes down at night, or the wind doesn’t blow, because that has a whole heck of a lot to do with hydropower, biopower (including landfill gas and waste to energy in additional to biomass and biofuels), geothermal power, or any of the other technologies that as a group make up renewables. And while your at it, how about getting up to speed on your most basic taking points? After all, the sun setting doesn’t even stop solar thermal power stations from generating electricity, so your “sun sets” trope doesn’t even matter anymore.
You want to know what will make the grid more reliable? Diversifying. (It was natural gas generation that tripped offline in Texas more than any other resource… not a renewable technology.). The fastest way to do that is with clean, renewable energy because the fuel supply infrastructure is already there and doesn’t have to be built (like your previous nuclear fuel cycle argument), and doesn’t have to be invented (like your fusion dreams).
And you can call me a janitor or other name as much as you like. You don’t know what I do, you certainly se to have no idea what a lobbyist is, and you probably insulted a lot of other readers with your inane justification of your attempted (yet completely inaccurate) description of what I do, why I do it, and what the state of energy technology actually is. Learn some real facts and science (or at the very least some market economics) before you come here citing heritage institute drivel and other right wing whack jobs as energy policy. All those groups do is shill for the biggest companies who fund them… talk about lobbyists.
So now you're pushing diversity, (which I would agree if it included fossil fuels), when "the time for renewables is now" essentially in lockstep with the administration killing off domestic energy production? You're not going to get invited to any congressional sponsor cocktail parties using that word if it includes anything outside your "approved" sources. But then again you mean renewable diversity taking over 62% domestic electricity production currently supplied by fossil fuels. When the grid does fail, I do know that none of you green energy water carriers will stand up and take responsibility.
You do realize that there is currently a drought that has reduced power output at the largest hydroelectric plant in the country and may temporarily shut down all together. Once again, out of human control so no big deal as long as your light switches still work, right? Try looking at the big picture for once and realize that fossil fuels is more reliable and that the green energy push without adequate backup is shortsighted. And now what you said didn't exist the LA Times just wrote about it this week.
That guy you accuse of obfuscating and sidetracking ran this country an order of magnitude better than your dear leader because in the real world, results matter. Your hero would never survive the scrutiny doled out previously but hey, November is coming so pop those meds now, (Brandon is).
Post a Comment