Tag Archives: Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

AI & Data Center Load Growth: On-Site Generation, Not Government Planning

From Watts Up With That?

By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton — April 17, 2024

“Wind and solar pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy ‘purity’ requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.”

Several recent articles have highlighted that artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers are increasing electricity usage, creating concern about adequate supply and its effect on local communities. These articles include:

The nation’s 2,700 data centers sapped more than 4 percent of the country’s total electricity in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency. Its projections show that by 2026, they will consume 6 percent.

While the hyperscalers typically need 10-14kW per rack in existing data centers, this is likely to rise to 40-60kW for AI-ready racks equipped with resource-hungry GPUs. This means that overall consumption of data centers across the US is likely to reach 35GW by 2030, up from 17GW in 2022.

Fundamentally, supporting accelerating AI/ML adoption requires more power and cooling than much of the existing data center inventory can accommodate,” the report said. “Not all existing data centers lend themselves to retrofitting, catalyzing demand for new product in both existing and emerging markets.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, largely through the perversely titled “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), is providing massive and unsustainable economic incentives to move the electric generation market towards virtually exclusive reliance upon renewable energies (wind and solar in particular) plus batteries.  However, such forms of electric energy pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy “purity” requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.

A recent WSJ article cogently articulated such problems as follows:

Meantime, the Inflation Reduction Act’s huge renewable subsidies make it harder for fossil-fuel and nuclear plants to compete in wholesale power markets. The cost of producing power from solar and wind is roughly the same as from natural gas. But IRA tax credits can offset up to 50% of the cost of renewable operators.

Many (if not most) electric utilities take these perverse subsidies as long as they can get them blessed by their (Federal, State and/or local regulators). Electric utilities probably self-justify such actions as serving their fiduciary duties.  Typically, however, they receive massive bonuses too. In so doing, they ignore both the physics denying reality of all renewables all the time for everything and the long-term economic devastation thereof. 

Other free market advocates are also weighing-in on these issues. They include:

Fisher’s article included the following graphic cogently illustrates IRA long-term costs.

Source: https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/IRA-tax-credits-for-renewables/

Fisher also presented testimony on these matters before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs within the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability for a hearing titled The Power Struggle: Examining the Reliability and Security of America’s Electrical Grid

Cogen Solution in Waiting

The purpose of this article is to call for increased attention to be paid to market-based technology approaches for addressing these problems. That focuses upon (but is not limited to) the rapidly growing needs of AI/data centers.  An approach, previously known as cogeneration and combined heat and power (CHP) gained popularity beginning in 1978 with the passage of PURPA. Great technology, bad policy.[1]

CHP technologies under the Biden Administration have lost favor given the myopic fixation upon establishing an energy monoculture via renewables, with all electricity and the electric grids necessary to deliver this fantasy. Customer-sited supply is taking a backseat.  Recent estimates, just for the U.S., and just for storage batteries places the total costs of this transition in the range of multiples of the world GDP.  These costs could double if the unlikely objective to “electrify everything” takes hold. [For more information see Climate Change Conundrum (and comments) and  “State-by-State “Electrification” Costs Report”.]

CHP provides a case-in-point showing how electric and natural gas infrastructures can and should work together for the betterment of the economy, the environment and the public-at-large focusing on data centers burgeoning electrical demand. Certainly, there are many more energy end-use examples that could likewise benefit from diversity.  Unfortunately, at present, diversity has become a priority of the Biden Administration for everything except energy.

Doing the Math

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration: “In 2022, total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation was about 4.24 trillion kWh.

4.24 trillion kWh = 4.24 × 1012 (1,000,000,000,000) = 4,240,000,000,000 kWh

4% of 4,240,000,000,000 kWh = 169,600,000,000 kWh/year (2022 electric consumption of data centers)

169,600,000,000 kWh/year ÷ 2,700 data centers = 62,814,815 kWh/year per data center. Assuming 8,760 hours per year of base-loaded operation, this equates to 7,170.64 kW (or 7.17 MW ) of demand.

This demand puts average data centers in the technology range of aero-derivative gas combustion turbines (a.k.a. CT’s; e.g., Solar Turbines) and/or an array of VERY large reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE; e.g., Jenbacher or Caterpillar). The latter (RICE) alternative may provide more economical redundancy by having at least one more “genset” than needed to meet peak demand in times of scheduled (maintenance) or unscheduled outages.

At present, it is common practice to install diesel-fueled generators for emergency backup.  Therefore, it is a manageable incremental cost to upgrade to continuous duty-rated natural gas engines and use them as such for CHP.

Since every kWh of data center CPU/GPU electricity consumption use produces 3412 Btu’s of heat energy, that heat must be removed to safeguard equipment and operations.  Consequently, a significant portion of the electricity used in AI and data centers is for large tonnage electric motor driven centrifugal chillers to deal with internal heat gain from electric operated computing devices (etc.). In this analysis we are taking a SWAG that 25% of the total 7.17 MW load is for cooling equipment to deal with such internal  heat gains.

Such cooling loads can be at least partially offset through engine heat recovery absorption chillers (e.g., Broad USA, Hitachi, Carrier, etc.).  Conversely, heat from engines in this size range can power steam boilers, that can be coupled to electric generators to make even more electricity.  Even still, there is ample excess heat to power absorption chillers. In any case, installing heat recovery absorption chillers instead of electric motor-drive centrifugal chillers substantially lowers the added investment for absorption alternatives.

 Simply assuming a cooling load of 7,171kW times 3,412 Btu’s per kilowatt hour then divided by 12,000 Btu per ton-hour equates to 2,039 tons of refrigeration for a typical or average data center. But that’s not just for the CPU/GPU load.  There is also some internal heat gain from lighting fans, people, etc., but that’s probably not much relative to CPU/GPU load from pushing electrons through silicone.  Let building designers thoroughly calculate cooling requirements. According to Broad USA, their heat recovery absorption chillers operate at an average of 140 % efficiency (i.e., a C.O.P. of 1.4) as long as the heat recovered meets their products’ requirements as far as flow rate, temperature, etc., etc.

At this point, analyses become site/application specific. To begin to conduct a proper feasibility study, a full 12 months of electric utility bills for an actual facility are needed and cooling load percentages factored in.  With utility billing records in hand, a “’before & after” spreadsheet can be created that looks at utility billing impacts for a given facility operations with and without on-site generation and heat recovery absorption cooling systems. 

To be meaningful, the spreadsheet should be based upon actual electric rate tariff sheets that the facility is billed on. If the analyst can replicate monthly utility bills based upon monthly demand and consumption, they are off to a good start to estimate savings potential. In addition to pecuniary savings, improvements in power quality and reliability from having generation on site should be evaluated.

One significant benefit of such an approach is the savings that accrue to other customers. As perfect power quality customers like data centers increase in number and demand, should the grid be designed and operated to meet their requirements and allocate those cost to all? Or should the power quality and reliability of the masses be met, and those with more stringent demands self-serve their nine-nines requirements.

Of course, permitting such systems has become increasingly complicated.  Therefore, it’s important to use the services of knowledgeable experienced consulting engineers to develop plans and get them through permitting processes.

Summary & Conclusions

Combined heat and power using waste heat recovery is a natural for AI/data centers deserves more consideration.  We hope that we have lit that spark. Whether that spark grows or not depends upon how permanently the Biden Administration has stifled market-based alternatives to renewables plus batteries via the “Inflation Reduction Act”  that strongly moves the market to higher and unsustainable levels of “clean energy” electrification.

The last of the additional references below indicates that there may be certain incentives for CHP through this Act, but we maintain that all such incentives are hidden taxes that are fueled by massive and ruinous deficit spending. Worse, there is no nexus between the subsidy levels and the value of CHP in specific cases. It is highly likely that some projects would see an excess level or insufficient level. We would be far better off as a society if everyone “just said no” and the Federal government got out of the way of innovation instead of trying to manage it.

Additional References

AI/data centers

On-site power generation

——————————————–

Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.

Tom Tanton is the Director of Science and Technology Assessment for E&E Legal. He is also president of T² & Associates, a firm providing services to the energy and technology industries. Tanton has 45 years of direct and responsible experience in energy technology and legislative interface, having been central to many of the critical legislative changes that enable technology choice. Until 2000, Tanton was the Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC) in Sacramento, California.  As General Manager at EPRI, from 2000 to 2003, Tanton was responsible for the overall management and direction of collaborative research and development programs in electric generation technologies, integrating technology, market infrastructure, and public policy. From 2003 through 2007, Tanton was Senior Fellow and Vice President of the Houston based Institute for Energy Research. He was also a Senior Fellow in Energy Studies with the Pacific Research Institute until 2010.

[1] The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was placed into law November 9, 1978 National Energy Act. It promoted energy conservation greater use of domestic energy and renewable energy (increase supply) and reflected the beginning of major increases in government intervention energy markets. One example  of this intervention is the mandate for utilities to buy the output, at government determined prices, from cogeneration facilities.

Biden’s green energy plans will funnel taxpayer billions to Chinese firms

Plans designed to protect US industry will bankroll China’s expansion.

From The Telegraph

By DAVID BLACKMON

It has been obvious for several years now that this government-subsidized energy transition away from fossil fuels and towards wind, solar, and electric vehicles will necessarily leave the western world highly dependent on China. This is an unavoidable truth given China’s overwhelming control of supplies and supply chains for minerals, processing, and components integral to the three rent-seeking industries presented as climate solutions by globalist elites.

In America, Joe Biden and congressional Democrats presented their Orwellian-titled Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as a plan that would help the US to build independence from China in this realm by subsidizing projects that would create competitive domestic sectors. But recent developments make it apparent that exactly the opposite is happening. 

A report by the Wall Street Journal details the fact that domestic content requirements for some domestic electric vehicles aren’t comprehensive enough to prevent Chinese encroachment into the US market. Chinese EV maker BYD is exploring opportunities to invest in plants in Mexico that would enable it to enter the US market by exploiting provisions in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that would allow it to avoid heavy US tariffs on imports of Chinese-made cars. 

The Journal reports that “at least a dozen” Chinese makers of EV components have already established factories in Mexico to exploit provisions in the USMCA that encourage US automakers to use parts made there. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares likens expansion plans by Chinese automakers into Mexico to the arrival of Japanese car companies into the US during the 1970s. Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk echoes Tavares’s concerns, saying, “If there are not trade barriers established, they will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world.”

Another story at the Daily Mail details concerns from various industry experts about growing efforts by Chinese companies to tap directly into the US by exploiting the various subsidies and tax breaks contained in the IRA. Access to the array of IRA goodies was left open to all comers without consideration of their country of origin, providing Chinese makers of solar cells, EV batteries and other relevant components – who already dominate global markets – the opportunity to seize a major share of the US market as well.

Jeff Ferry, chief economist at the non-profit Coalition for a Prosperous America, called the IRA structure “naïve,” adding that “The bottom line is that if you take markets like electric vehicle (EV) batteries, or solar cells, where China already has a dominant global position, and you allow its firms to own facilities in the US and access the US taxpayer, you’re allowing them to extend their global monopoly.”

The non-partisan business NGO E2 says Chinese companies are already tied to at least a dozen US-based projects with capital investments of over $10 billion that will be able to exploit IRA provisions. Biden’s own Treasury Department admits that Chinese firms already represent about 15 per cent of new solar-related investment in the US market since the IRA was passed into law in September 2022.

In one of his earliest actions upon assuming office, President Biden issued an executive order directing his administration to mount a “whole of government” approach to establish supply chains independent of China related to minerals and components integral to the expansion of the three chosen rent-seeking industries: wind, solar and EVs. Last November, the White House finally got around to convening a new Council on Supply Chain Resilience that will consider acting on a list of about 30 separate actions to advance that lofty goal. 

It’s a classic slow-moving bureaucratic process that likely amounts to too little, too late, as Chinese interests are already exploiting ill-considered provisions in the IRA and USMCA to gain footholds into American markets. Any thoughts that an asleep-at-the-wheel White House and paralyzed congress will be willing or able to move quickly and effectively to address the matter are absurd. That’s just not how Washington, DC works.

David Blackmon had a 40 year career in the US energy industry, the last 23 years of which were spent in the public policy arena, managing regulatory and legislative issues for various companies. He continues to write and podcast on energy matters

Offshore wind and the stress on commercial fishermen

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

Congressional Republicans are sounding the Mayday alarm this weekend to the grave challenges commercial fishermen face resulting from the Biden administration’s offshore wind agenda.

Offshore wind development is placing enormous stress on the American commercial fishing fleet, which may not survive these challenges. A trio of coastal lawmakers, Reps. Andy. Harris (R-Md.), Chris Smith (R.-N.J.), and Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) will explore offshore wind farm interactions at an upcoming hearing, which their colleagues and the public should heed.

President Joe Biden casts himself as a friend to American workers, but his poor treatment of fishermen and their communities puts the lie to this claim. Biden’s plan to produce 30 GW of offshore wind energy by the year 2030 is based solely on political goals, not any actual scientific investigation of our ocean’s offshore ecosystems. The science is unresolved. Coastal economies are forgotten. Energy and food security questions are ignored. And that’s just for starters.

There are many significant gaps in our understanding of offshore wind’s interactions with all facets of the marine environment, as an exhaustive research document from the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) reflects.

What will the well-documented wind-wake effect do to ocean primary production – the upwelling and downwelling of the ocean – which is the building block of marine food webs? What of European modeling that shows increased sea surface temperatures relative to offshore wind turbines? Those models indicate that said warming mimics the effects of climate change and could extend up to 60 miles past lease areas. Would that hurt the ocean?

Wind turbines in the UK (such as the Thanet wind farm) have created continuous sand sediment plumes underwater that extend for miles and destroy fishing grounds. Could that happen in the U.S.? How do electromagnetic fields that subsea cables generate affect fish migration? Could it affect species development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, and the administration has not made even a good-faith effort to do the science required before leasing began.

Despite the uncertain science, the administration is speeding ocean industrialization along to the benefit of foreign entities and governments. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) offers a 30% tax credit for projects that begin construction before 2026 as a way to turbocharge offshore wind development.

Nearly all the leaseholders are multi-national entities, in some cases majority-owned by foreign governments. For example, administration officials in November trumpeted federal approval of two offshore wind farms south of Long Island, Empire Wind 1 and Empire Wind 2. The developers behind these projects are British Petroleum and Equinor, a Norwegian government-owned energy company.

These projects, and others like them, will undermine and perhaps destroy local commercial fishing fleets coastwide. We know from experience that offshore wind infrastructure is not compatible with their fishing gear. Radar scatter and false targets create such dangers that fishermen cannot safely access lease areas if the entrance is allowed at all.

But instead of the Biden administration removing commercial fishing grounds from offshore wind lease areas first, industry backers in the U.S., such as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), have crafted bills to instead compensate fishermen for lost catch.

But that doesn’t solve the problem. Fishermen don’t want a hand-out. Cutting checks for destroying a sustainable heritage industry is technocracy at its ugliest.

That approach will also force us to rely more heavily on farmed and wild-caught seafood from places like Russia and China with non-existent environmental and public health oversight. Didn’t the pandemic teach us that domestic food production and national food security matter?

Put simply: the Biden administration is offering tax credits to foreign-government-owned energy companies and/or foreign developers (or their U.S. subsidiaries) who will put US commercial fishermen out of work, seed dysfunction in US coastal fishing communities, risk destroying the ocean’s productivity and replace a sustainable domestic wild-caught high protein food source with subpar and sometimes unsafe foreign products.

Unfortunately, so far, many Republicans have missed the boat on this poignant story about the systematic destruction of our nation’s oldest industry at the hands of the Biden administration and Democrats’ offshore wind policy. But if they replace fishing with another resource user type, like logging, farming or ranching, they have probably lived it in their own state.

Reps. Harris, Smith, and Van Drew have been relentless in uncovering the multiple conflicts that offshore wind presents to our coastline and this country. Their colleagues and the public at large needs to understand quickly what Joe from Scranton’s administration is trying to do to this iconic industry, our wild-caught seafood supply, our nation’s safety, security and the ocean itself, before it’s too late.

A Federal Power Grid Would be Everyone’s Worst Nightmare

From Watts Up With That?

by Gordon Tomb

When a cold snap in December 2022 caused widespread power outages, central planners eagerly called upon the federal government to play a larger role in our power grids to minimize deadly blackouts.

The left-wing Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) dubbed the United States the only country “without a plan.” The electric system’s “fragmented planning framework is highly problematic because the power grid is under growing stress from climate change-related extreme weather,” claimed RMI.

Reuters published a lengthy special report about a “creaky grid” hampering wind and solar energy. The piece lamented how the federal government “lacks the authority to push through the massive grid expansion and modernization needed to withstand wilder weather and accommodate EVs and renewable power.” Furthermore, the article described the U.S. grid as “a Byzantine web of local, state, and regional regulators.”

To be sure, current grid management is far from perfect. The North American Electric Reliability Corp recently reported that more than half of the U.S. population is at risk of outages during frigid winters.

However, turning the electric system over to federal bureaucrats would be like making a vandal the property manager of an apartment complex.

The federal government’s overzealous environmental regulations and quasi-religious commitment to “green” energy have significantly contributed to grid reliability issues. And these problems are increasingly manifesting as life-threatening and costly blackouts.

Voters, consumers, and lawmakers should be skeptical of seemingly reasonable recommendations for “better planning and coordination” among the dozen regional power grids—especially when they demand increased federal oversight.

For example, RMI suggested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) require “both a minimum amount of inter-regional transfer capability and a robust inter-regional planning process.”

However, inter-regional power sharing and planning already exist, and the real impetus for increasing federal involvement is the “green” agenda to add more wind and solar to the grid.

Unfortunately, we are already heading in the wrong direction, moving from stable, always-available power sources (e.g., coal, gas, and nuclear) toward unreliable wind and solar. This transition—imposed by subsidies and government fiat—is straining the nation’s electrical grid.

Our federal bureaucracy has undermined the integrity of the power grid by forcing early retirements of reliable coal-fired power plants. Targeted by federal and state regulators hostile to coal, the Homer City power station, Pennsylvania’s largest plant, closed last July. Two more, the Pittsburgh-area Keystone and Conemaugh plants, will shut down in the next four years.

Federal meddling in energy markets also includes the proliferation of “green” energy subsidies. These subsidies’ corrosive influence dilutes the original mission of power grids, such as the PJM Interconnection serving Pennsylvania and 12 other states, according to former FERC official James Danly.

“[Energy] markets have become something closer to a mechanism by which to harvest … subsidies, rather than what they were intended to do, which is ensure least-cost dispatch of available resources and to incentivize new investment,” said Danly.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will make matters worse.

“For the most part, [grids] have embraced the goal of economic efficiency,” writes Travis Fisher, the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute. “However, some … have begun to include the ‘clean‐energy transition’ and ‘environmentally sustainable power system’ in their mission statements.”

Fisher’s worry: “The IRA will push [grids] further into a new era in which the goal of economic efficiency [i.e., affordable energy] is secondary to environmental goals or ignored entirely.”

Some state lawmakers want to head the federal government off at the pass. After several hearings, Pennsylvania’s Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee recently proposed an Independent Energy Office to sort out the complex issues of the commonwealth’s energy landscape.

Undoubtedly, there is much to do in the Keystone State, one of the nation’s largest energy producers. Pennsylvania’s elected officials must bolster the management of the life-sustaining electric system and increase access to affordable, reliable energy.

However, policymakers concerned about grid reliability should be wary of increased federal intrusion. What may be a dream come true for central planners ought to be everybody else’s nightmare.

This commentary was first published at Delaware Valley Journal on January 12, 2023.

Gordon Tomb is a Senior Fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank, and a Senior Advisor with the CO2 Coalition in Arlington, VA.

Biden’s EV Boondoggle Enriches Himself

green plant leaves growing on coin stacking money saving business finance success wealth investment budget concept. stack coin on wood table with green blur background.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The Greenest thing about the New Green Deal is the Money.

The spending on “Green Energy Projects” is enormous and uncontrolled.  Larry Behrens explains at Real Clear Energy Too Favored to Fail:” Taxpayers Bailout Biden’s Green Friends.  Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds.

While America struggles to buy groceries, President Joe Biden has a
green slush fund worth billions of dollars, and he’s not afraid to use it.

Billions Disappear with Rivian Bankruptcy

Recent revelations uncovered that the CEO and lobbyists of Rivian, an electric vehicle manufacturer, held a quiet meeting at the White House with Biden’s Climate Czar, John Podesta. That’s right, the same John Podesta who served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated 2016 presidential campaign before being pulled from the ranks of profitable green consulting to oversee distribution of $369 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Biden selected a political operative with green company ties to dole out the goodies from one of the largest slush funds in history. Now green CEOs who are hemorrhaging cash are beating a path to his White House office, presumedly with hat in hand.

According to media reports, Rivian is deep in the red. Last year, they lost $6.8 billion. In 2021, it was $4.7 billion, which is in addition to the $1 billion lost in 2020. These massive losses happened as EV manufacturers enjoyed large subsidies both to build and sell their vehicles. In fact, President Biden went out of his way to praise Rivian in early 2022, even though their stock had already lost half its value on its way to losing 87% of its value since 2021. Losing over $12 billion in less than three years would normally be a problem in the business world, but in the upside-down reality of Biden’s green agenda, that gets you a meeting at the White House.

Tax dollars are flowing from the IRA so quickly that the Department
of Energy’s Inspector General (IG) may be running out of adjectives.

Earlier this month in testimony before the Senate, the IG said, “the current situation brings tremendous risk to the taxpayers.” Red flags about American dollars flowing to foreign companies or just being wasted here at home are going up, yet according to budget watchdogs, their concerns are met with deaf ears by senior Biden Administration officials. The IG notes there were “billions and billions of dollars lost or stolen” from federal Covid funds, and Biden’s slush fund is even bigger. To put it bluntly, the green vault is wide open and the grifters are lining up.

“Green Banks” Dole Out Taxpayer Cash

Here’s a particular galling example. One little known aspect of the IRA are so-called “green banks.” For greenies, the scheme is simple: regular banks will not fund their boondoggles, so they need a taxpayer backed entity to dole out cash. Unlike regular banks, these green banks do not need to make a profit to stay afloat because the government is their funder.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was caught trying to set up a green bank without the trouble of going through the elected legislature. The board of the bank will be green non-profits who will be in charge because as the New Mexico climate czar put it, “We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars…This greenhouse gas reduction fund is a remarkable little beast.” Recently, Grisham announced the green bank anyway. The slush fund is open for business, and everyone has their hand out.

Congress is watching the “green bank” scheme because they know it is ripe for abuse. The problem is clear: The White House put a political operative in charge of what is nothing more than a political fund. For Barack Obama, they were too big to fail, but Joe Biden is taking it further. When it comes to his failed agenda, his green boondoggles are “too favored to fail.”

Biden’s Wasted EV Subsidies Eclipse Solyndra

Helen Raleigh reports at The Federalist The Biden Administration’s Electric Vehicle Subsidies Are Becoming Another Solyndra.  Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm made $1.6 million from
an electric car company the Biden administration boosted
that just went bankrupt.

Proterra, an electric bus and battery company that President Joe Biden touted as a success of his green energy initiative, filed for bankruptcy in August. Last week, it finally sold its embattled battery business at a rock-bottom price as part of the bankruptcy proceeding. The rise and fall of Proterra demonstrates once again that politicians should refrain from betting taxpayers’ money on business ventures to advance their political agenda.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Proterra has sold only 550 electric transit buses since its founding in 2004. Most of the sales were underwritten by government agencies with federal grants. Proterra’s electric buses were plagued with mechanical defects and other performance issues, such as limited range and long charging times. Besides government subsidies, the company only survived as long as it had due to powerful political connections. Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, served on its board.

Despite all the quality issues of its EV buses, Proterra went public in January 2021 and raised $650 million, more than three times its annual revenue. A month after the company’s IPO, Biden tapped Granholm as his energy secretary. Proterra’s political connection to the Biden administration paid off in many ways.

Surviving on Grants and Tax Credits

In April 2021, Biden took a virtual tour of a Proterra facility to promote his infrastructure plan. The proposal included $6.5 billion in grants to help replace diesel-powered school and transit buses with electric ones. During the tour, Biden lauded Proterra for “getting us in the game.” He predicted that Proterra and other electric vehicle companies would “end up owning the future.”

Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act further enriched Proterra’s coffer. The law had little to do with reducing inflation, but it gave massive government handouts to the green energy sector. For instance, IRA includes a $40,000 per vehicle tax credit for purchasing electric commercial vehicles and an additional tax credit for EV batteries.

Proterra admitted in its quarterly report that “the availability of this new unprecedented level of government funding for our customers, suppliers, and competitors to help fund purchases of commercial electric vehicles and battery systems will remain an important factor in our company’s growth prospects.” Proterra’s political profile rose even more after Biden appointed Gareth Joyce, CEO of Proterra, to serve on the President’s Export Council in February this year.

Backed by Biden, Buried by Biden

Excessive government spending under Biden has sparked high inflation rates that were last seen in the 1970s. To bring inflation rates down, the Federal Reserve has aggressively raised interest rates. Higher rates increased production and operations costs for many companies. As legendary investor Warren Buffett famously said, “Only when the tide goes out do you learn who has been swimming naked.” Proterra was one of those companies that had been caught “swimming naked” in this new environment.

The company struggled because it had difficulty passing rising costs on to its existing customers, since most were government agencies with little budget flexibility. Nor could Proterra outsource its production overseas or import components at lower costs. Receiving government grants comes with strings attached. One requirement is that companies like Proterra must produce at least 70 percent of their EV components in America. Proterra couldn’t afford to cut the prices of its EVs to drum up sales.

Finally, Proterra filed for bankruptcy in August. Government subsidies could not offset the financial pressure of rising inflation, higher interest rates, and falling sales. Last week, a Swedish automobile manufacturer, Volvo, bought Proterra’s battery business for $210 million, a great deal considering Proterra was valued at $1.6 billion a year ago.

Another party who got an excellent deal was Granholm. She sold her Proterra shares for $1.6 million last year. They would have been worth nothing if she had held on to her Proterra shares until this

August. The biggest loser of the whole Proterra saga is American taxpayers.

No Good News for Electric Vehicles

Proterra was not the only EV company that went under. Michigan-based Electric Last Mile declared bankruptcy in June 2022. Ohio-based Lordstown Motors went bankrupt a year later. Ironically, these companies benefited from the Biden administration’s climate handouts, but the economic consequences of the same policies eventually doomed them. Even large automobile companies’ EV units are struggling. Ford estimates it will lose $3 billion this year on its EV business. The company relies on sales of gas-powered vehicles and government subsidies to keep the EV business afloat. 

What’s In This for the Bidens?

Fred Lucas explain in his Daily Signal article Hunter Biden’s Cobalt Deal With China Increases Cost of His Father’s Push for Electric Cars.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Presidential son Hunter Biden’s most recent controversy—assisting a Chinese company’s purchase of a large cobalt mine—is linked directly to a top Biden administration policy of promoting electric vehicles.

Cobalt, a relatively rare and expensive mineral, is an essential part of batteries used to power electric automobiles. The COVID-19 pandemic also made U.S. officials and the public much more aware of Communist China’s control of the supply chain for drugs and other products.

The younger Biden, 51, is a one-time partner in China-based Bohai Harvest RST, known as BHR, and reportedly remains a stakeholder. 

The New York Times first reported over the weekend that BHR facilitated mining company China Molybdenum’s $2.65 billion purchase of a cobalt and copper mine from an American company, Freeport-McMoRan. 

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo. told The Daily Signal,

The latest news [that] he assisted a Chinese company purchase one of the largest cobalt mines is another example of Hunter Biden using his influence to line his pockets and help a foreign adversary. Conducting oversight of Hunter Biden’s questionable ethics and dealings that undermine our national security will continue to be a top priority for Oversight [Committee] Republicans.

The committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., tweeted: “By helping Chinese companies mine rare minerals in Congo, Hunter Biden is helping Communist China corner the Electric Vehicle market that @POTUS is subsidizing here at home.” 

Summary:

The campaign is to force electric vehicles upon Americans who otherwise do not want them.  And why?  It’s not about climate change, not about the environment.  It’s about greed not green.

“Degrowth”: The Future of Green Growth?

From Watts Up With That?

Tilak Doshi’s commentary in Forbes takes on the growing influence of the Degrowth Movement.

The allure of “green growth” appears irresistible to politicians from developed Western countries. And it’s not hard to see why. As reflected in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) presented by President Biden and the European Union’s $270 billion “Green Deal Industrial Plan”, among others, there’s a dual promise of environmental rejuvenation coupled with economic vigor. A blend that seems to be the panacea for our times.

“President Biden’s misnamed $369-billion Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)… promises to “lift up American workers and create good-paying, union jobs across the country” while reducing not only carbon emissions but also energy costs by “incentivizing domestic production in clean energy technologies like solar, wind, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/08/25/is-degrowth-now-the-new-green-growth/

However, the enchanting symphony of green growth might be a little off-key, leading us down a path that’s not as golden as promised.

Dissent from Within

Surprisingly, the voices of skepticism aren’t emerging from outside the esteemed “Church of Climate,” but rather from its very heart. A revealing survey in Nature Sustainability displayed an unexpected twist:

“A growing body of research within the scientific community is challenging the idea that green growth is fundamentally possible or even desirable”. The survey’s authors conclude that “despite the strong promotion of green growth by policymakers and international institutions, there is mounting criticism concerning the compatibility of continued economic growth with sustainability goals.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/08/25/is-degrowth-now-the-new-green-growth/

The Mirage of Green Growth

The seductive concept of green growth finds its roots in the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. A vision of a world where economic expansion and environmental guardianship coexist, demanding no compromises.

“Environmental sustainability is mom’s venerable apple pie, something no reasonable person could object to… green growth ensures both economic growth and environmental sustainability.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/08/25/is-degrowth-now-the-new-green-growth/

However, with time, the legitimacy of this enticing vision is increasingly being questioned. It’s telling when industry stalwarts, such as the Saudi oil minister, equate reports from institutions like the International Energy Agency to whimsical journeys to “La La Land.”

The Winds of ‘Degrowth’ and ‘Agrowth’

What’s even more striking is the form of the alternative solutions proposed. A noteworthy 28% of the climate researchers from the survey advocate for “degrowth”. But what does that mean for the layman?

“A deliberate and equitable reduction in material consumption and economic activity in high-income countries to achieve more sustainable and socially just societies.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/08/25/is-degrowth-now-the-new-green-growth/

While the majority seem to be leaning towards “agrowth”, a vision that puts GDP, jobs, and wages in a standstill, elevating environmental conservation as the paramount concern.

Considering this data, it’s hard to overlook the contention that a staggering 75% of climate researchers might be pushing back against the green growth narrative. Is this call for a pared-back existence reminiscent of philosophical ideals, or is there a more sinister motive lurking beneath?

“This sect in the Church of Climate seeks totalitarian control over the means of production and aspires to swiftly end cheap energy by sidelining economic growth as a valid governmental objective.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/08/25/is-degrowth-now-the-new-green-growth/

BRICS: The Beacon of Hope

Yet, it’s not all gloom and doom. The survey offers a glimmer of hope, with a noticeable divide in sentiments between developed and developing nations. A significant majority of climate researchers from non-OECD nations, especially the BRICS, seem to lean favorably towards green growth.

This dichotomy perhaps underscores a profound realization:

Human progress is intertwined with fossil fuels, and green growth offers a socially acceptable means to ensure uninterrupted access to affordable energy.

At the end of the day, the ambition of billions beyond the Western hemisphere may not align with ideals like St. Francis’ vow of austerity. Perhaps they are more inclined to seek prosperity through deities like Lord Ganesh. And who could fault them? The quest for a sustainable future shouldn’t necessitate the forfeiture of human advancement.

Biden’s crazy electric car plan means grid collapse, probably this decade – Telegraph

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

 August 24, 2023 by oldbrew

EV charging station [image credit: InsideEVs]

The numbers just don’t add up. Net zero-style mandates from climate obsessives don’t take reality seriously. Firstly, the ageing electricity grid can’t take the strain. Secondly, new transmission lines take many years to approve, let alone build. Thirdly, a shortage of transformers – which take a long time to make and can’t be mass-produced – also precludes rapid progress. That’s without even discussing the unpredictable intermittency of renewables.
– – –
Policies enacted by the Biden administration and the previous, Democrat-controlled Congress are set to plunge the USA into a serious energy crisis in the coming years, says The Telegraph.

It all has to do with the Biden government’s decision to try to force mass adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) before either the market or the power grid can adjust to meet the whopping new demand for power generation or to supply the critical minerals needed to make the batteries that power the cars.

Democrat members of Congress and Biden’s appointed officials are coordinating an effort to force EV adoption on reluctant consumers via a classic carrot and stick approach.

The Orwellian 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides the carrot in the form of billions of dollars in new subsidies for EV makers and buyers alike, while the Biden EPA applies the proverbial stick by invoking stricter tailpipe emissions controls and higher mileage requirements designed to force most current internal combustion engine (ICE) models out of the market.

The desired result, according to the White House, will be that two thirds of cars on the road by 2032 will be EVs.

Given that Hedges & Co reports there were 290 million cars on US roads in 2022, and accounting for likely growth over the next decade, this would mean well over 200 million EVs on US roads in just 9 years.

That compares to roughly 3 million EVs currently, so we’re talking about a 70-fold rise in EV adoption in that short period of time.

No problem, right?

Wrong. There are plenty of problems with this concept – very large and imposing problems, in fact.

Full article here.

GOP Debt Ceiling Bill Guts Biden’s Signature Climate Law, Saves Taxpayers Billions

From Daily Caller

By JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

CONTRIBUTOR

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy unveiled a Republican budget proposal Wednesday that would end the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of green tax cuts in President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The proposed legislation would defund the IRS programs responsible for implementing the tax credits in the (IRA), which analysts at Goldman Sachs recently estimated could cost as much as $1.2 trillion, more than three times the Congressional Budget Office’s original estimate of $370 billion. The Republican spending plan — also known as the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 —  would also block student loan forgiveness, take steps to claw back COVID-19 benefits from fraudsters and impose more stringent work requirements for beneficiaries of anti-poverty welfare programs while raising the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. 

“The Limit, Save, Grow Act will limit federal spending, save taxpayers trillions of dollars, grow our economy, and lift the debt limit into next year,” said GOP House leadership in a statement Wednesday. “This legislation will make us less dependent on the whims of the Chinese Communist Party and curb high inflation, all without touching Social Security or Medicare — because no one is hurt more by inflation than seniors.”

The proposal is not expected to make it past the Senate, and will face a vote in the full House next week, according to Bloomberg. McCarthy said that he planned to “restore discipline” to Washington’s spending in a Monday speech at the New York Stock Exchange that White House spokesman Andrew Bates criticized for being a “MAGA Republican Wishlist.”

The White House, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone did not immediately respond to a Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.