"Take away the subsidies from fossils and see how good they are,..."I keep hearing about subsidies to fossil fuels, but no actual evidence of it.
Please send official source(s) (either government or independently audited) that quantifies the extent of these said subsidies.
"and also Trump had to disarm the EPA to gain access to oil reserves off the California coast, and he's unfunded all the green projects in the US."You're indignant about the Trump administration opening up oil reserves?
But under the term of his predecessor - the one who came into office declaring a war on fossil fuels - US crude production when from 10mn bbl/day in Feb 2021 to 13.5mn bbl/day - a record level for the US - at the end of the Biden term. That's a 35% increase, to an all-time US record, making the US the single biggest producer of crude in the world. Bigger, even than Saudi Arabia.
How do you like them hypocritical apples?
As for the current administration un-funding green projects, well that's because they don't work. Have a look at the poster child for renewable energy, Germany. Tens of billions of dollars spent on adding renewable energy, resulting in a near-doubling of installed capacity.
Yet because of the intermittency constraints, total energy generation in Germany has been falling (similarly in the UK):
View attachment 6919689Why would the US want to pursue policies that replicate that kind of highly unfavourable energy outcome?
You can make the area under the supply curve as big as you like but it's to no avail if you aren't able to clear the market at all points of the demand curve.
It's all very well adding lots and lots and lots of power, but not if its the wrong kind of power.
Such are the iron-clad laws of Physics and the immutable tenets of Economics.
I suspect that, by canning taxpayer money being waster on green projects, the Trump administration is simply following those Laws of Physics and Tenets of Economics.
And not wasting taxpayer money is a large part of the reason they got voted into power.
.
(20min delay)