Tag: green energy

Energy group says Biden had no knowledge of climate change EOs, doubt validity of autopen use

Apro-energy group scrutinized eight of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders which pertained to climate and energy issues, but their research found no evidence that Biden ever spoke publicly about the contents of the climate change-oriented EOs. The group also asserts that the signatures on the EOs match Biden’s autopen signature instead of his genuine signature, thus calling into question whether the president ever knew about the executive orders. 

Power the Future, the organization who examined the orders, is now urging investigations from multiple bodies to determine if Biden knew of the executive orders and, if not, who did, and what course of action should be taken next. 

No evidence Biden knew about the EO’s signed with his name

Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of Power the Future, spoke to the Furthermore with Amanda Head podcast and said, “The curious thing about these executive orders is that we found no evidence at all that the President spoke of them on the record. He wasn’t asked a question by the media. He wasn’t stopped on Air Force One. He didn’t give a speech about it.”

“There’s no evidence that the president was cognizant that this was done, that he directed it, that he was part of the decision. There was never any follow-up,” Turner continued. “The only evidence we have that the President signed it is the autopen signature and then some little statement on social media.”

Turner said that his organization highlighted these specific orders because of their scope, how much damage they did to the energy industry and, by extension, to the overall economy and national security.

Power the Future sent their findings to multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, along with the House and Senate Oversight Committees. 

Among the most critical of Biden’s executive actions on climate and energy include an Inauguration Day executive order in 2021 committing the federal government to net-zero emissions by 2050, a 2023 order banning arctic drilling, and an order requiring “clean energy” artificial intelligence centers, and a last-minute offshore drilling ban shortly before leaving office in 2025. 

Keep reading

‘Cheap’ solar and wind is a lie, green countries pay more!

Ask families in Germany and the UK what happens when more and more supposedly “cheap” solar and wind power is added to the national power mix, and they can tell you by looking at their utility bills: It gets far more expensive.

The idea that power should get cheaper as we get more green energy is only true if we exclusively used electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

But modern societies need power around the clock. When there is no sun and wind, green energy needs plenty of backup, often powered by fossil fuels. What this means is that we pay for not one but two power systems.

And as the backup fossil fuel power sources are used less, they need to earn their capital costs back in fewer hours, leading to even more expensive power.

This means real energy costs of solar and wind are far higher. One study looking at China showed that the real cost of solar power on average turns out to be twice as high as coal, while a peer-reviewed study of Germany and Texas shows solar and wind are many times more expensive than fossil fuels.

Keep reading

Department of Interior emails reveal Biden’s offshore wind waivers could cost taxpayers millions

Newly uncovered emails from the Biden administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) show that taxpayers could be on the hook for $191 million in removal costs for Vineyard Wind, a 62-turbine wind farm being constructed off the coast of Nantucket, as a result of waivers the administration granted Vineyard Wind and other East Coast projects. 

In its rush to fulfill former President Joe Biden’s goal of constructing 30 gigawatts of wind farms off the coasts of America, the Biden administration had issued waivers for financial assurances on offshore wind projects, saying they present an unnecessary burden to the industry. 

The financial assurance requirement protects the public from decommissioning liabilities. If companies can’t afford to remove the wind towers they’re building after their useful life, the public has an assurance that those liabilities will be covered.

In 2017, Vineyard Wind requested a waiver to delay the assurances for 15 years after the project was built, and it was denied. They requested the same waiver in 2021 under the Biden administration, and the request was granted. The waiver cited long-term power purchase agreements, which guarantee the facility operators a set price for the electricity they produce over 20 years, “robust insurance policies,” and the “use of proven technology.”

Keep reading

The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

Last week, Ofgem announced that the Energy Price Cap would be lowered. From July, average bill payers will see “a decrease of 7% compared to the cap set between April 1st to June 30th, 2025”. The likes of Ed Miliband were quick to capture the good news by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the 2050 Net Zero and 2030 Clean Power agendas. But a closer look at the detail of the price cut and other news shows just how fragile those agendas really are.

The news that there would be a price cut was not unexpected. Energy price caps are announced quarterly. As reported here, the Spring (April-June) price cap rise was announced in February – the third since the Labour Government was elected in July last year on the promise of “lower bills”. “Energy bills are set to rise again due to a spike in global gas markets,” claimed Ed Miliband ahead of Ofgem’s February rise. But there is no such thing as “global gas markets”. And that “spike” had already passed.

A post-pandemic low price of gas on UK markets had occurred in February 2024 at around 56p per therm (29.3 kWh). But over the next year, this price increased to 142p, peaking on February 11th. On February 25th, Ofgem announced a 6.4% price cap increase for the second quarter of this year. But by the time of Ofgem’s announcement, a mere fortnight later, the price had fallen to 106p – a fall of 25%. Into the second quarter, the price fell further, reaching a low of 69p – or less than half of February’s spike price – on April 7th. The price then stabilised at around 83p (around 42% of the peak price).

“It’s great news the energy price cap is going down, but we have more to do”, tweeted Ed Milband in response to last week’s announcement from Ofgem – as if he and his policies had caused the price drop. “Our clean power mission is the route to long-term energy security and lower bills,” he added. Odd, isn’t it, that a 6.4% increase in the cap was blamed on (non-existent) “global gas markets”, but that a 7% drop in the cap, following a 42% reduction in UK gas prices, is not blamed on the same outside forces, but is instead given as cause to double down on the green agenda.

The clues are there for those whose capacity for simple maths is not hindered by green ideology… a 42% reduction in UK gas prices yielded only a 7% drop in the energy price cap. But doesn’t Miliband tell us that “global gas prices” are the cause of all our problems? 

And not just Milband. In the Times, the Green Blob’s favourite du jour talking point is reproduced uncritically by the newspaper’s Energy Editor, Emily Gosden. “Unlinking electricity prices from gas ‘would cut energy bills’,” claims the headline. According to this meme, remastered by energy market consultant Adam Bell, formerly Head of Energy Strategy at BEIS and Senior Policy Advisor at DECC, the “link” between gas prices and electricity prices could be “cut”. According to the article, “Britain’s wholesale market operates on a system of ‘marginal pricing’ whereby the most expensive plant needed to keep the lights on determines the price all generators are paid”.

Keep reading

Green Agenda Has Cost British Households £220 Billion Since 2006: Study

British consumers have paid nearly £220 billion more on their energy prices over the past two decades as a result of Westminster’s radical green agenda schemes, a report from a leading energy consultancy firm has found.

The UK public has been “seduced by narratives that renewables are cheap,” however, according to a study conducted by Watt-Logic’s Kathryn Porter presented by Lord Offord, the Shadow Energy Minister in the House of Lords, has found that the opposite is true, with the green agenda not only siphoning off taxpayer cash subsidies but also driving up energy costs for consumers.

“That renewables are not cheap should be clear, based both on the evidence that after 35 years of subsidies, we are yet to see any benefits through lower bills,” the report found.

According to Porter’s calculations, if the British government had not embarked upon its so-called green energy transition programme, British households would have saved £218 billion since 2006.

The report found that the direct cost of net zero policies in 2023-24 accounted for £17 billion in additional costs on consumer energy bills, and it predicted that this would continue to rise to more than £20 billion in 2029-30.

Porter acknowledged that gas prices were impacted by the Ukraine War and broader Western conflict with Russia, however, she noted that this would not explain why energy prices have steadily risen for the two decades prior to the 2021-23 gas crisis in Europe.

Keep reading

‘Green Energy’ Is Quietly Polluting A Landfill Near You

While green advocates commonly use the terms renewable, sustainable, and net zero to describe their efforts, the dirty little secret is that much of the waste from solar panels and wind turbines is ending up in landfills. 

The current amounts of fiberglass, resins, aluminum and other chemicals — not to mention propeller blades from giant wind turbines — pose no threat currently to local town dumps, but this largely ignored problem will become more of a challenge in the years ahead as the 500 million solar panels and the 73,000 wind turbines now operating in the U.S. are decommissioned and replaced.

Greens insist that reductions in carbon emissions will more than compensate for increased levels of potentially toxic garbage; others fret that renewable energy advocates have not been forthright about their lack of eco-friendly plans and the technology to handle the waste.

“Nobody planned on this, nobody had a plan to get rid of them, nobody planned for closure,” said Dwight Clark, whose company, Solar eWaste Solutions, recycles solar panels. “Nobody thought this through.”

The discussion about what to do with worn-out solar and wind equipment is another topic usually elided in net zero blueprints, which often focus on the claimed benefits of projects while discounting or ignoring the costs. As RealClearInvestigations previously reported regarding the lack of plans for acquiring the massive amounts of land for solar and wind farms needed to achieve net zero, the math can get fuzzy, and the numbers cited most frequently are those rosiest for renewables.

“They’ve been either silent, or incoherent — or just hand-wave that we should recycle all this stuff without telling us how,” said Mark Mills, executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics. In the headlong effort to make solar and wind seem as inexpensive as possible, they have not included fees that address the eventual cost of disposal, which could leave taxpayers holding the bag.

Some renewable supporters acknowledge Mills’ point. The Alliance for Affordable Energy, which supports government-funded research on recycling panels and turbines, said the “circular economy” Mills referred to has yet to materialize.

“With the existing energy infrastructure, a lot of end-of-life questions have never been addressed,” the Alliance’s executive director, Logan Burke, told RCI. “It may be that those costs have to be embedded in the front-end, but somehow we need to make the market circular. How do we find that market at the end of their useful life?”

Just how many panels the U.S. will dispose of or retire each year is also unclear. No clearing house keeps track of national figures, according to Meng Tao, an energy engineering professor at Arizona State University and a consultant on renewable waste issues.

Keep reading

Eco-experiment that ‘blacked out entire country’: Spanish scientists ‘were experimenting with how far they could push renewable energy’ before country-wide chaos

Spanish authorities were experimenting with how far they could push their reliance on renewable energy before the Iberian Peninsula was hit with a massive power outage last month, it has been suggested. 

As people wait for more answers on what caused the power cut that disrupted tens of millions of lives across Spain and Portugal, several have questioned Spain’s heavy reliance on renewable energy sources as it plans to phase out nuclear reactors. 

Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has rejected such criticism, asking for patience while the government investigates the causes of the historic blackout. 

Spain’s electric grid operator Red Eléctrica de España pinned it on a significant and unprecedented drop in power generation. 

Now, it has been suggested that the Spanish government was carrying out an experiment before the country’s grid system crashed, The Telegraph reports. 

Under said test, authorities had been trialling how far they could push their reliance on renewables as they prepared for Spain’s phase-out of nuclear reactors from 2027. 

The Spanish Association of Electrical Energy Companies (Aelec), which has criticised the inquiry into the blackout’s cause, has now said it was not the country’s generators that failed to deliver power to the grid, but rather it was the grid that failed to manage it and then shut down automatically. 

The head of Spain’s photovoltaic association, Jose Donoso, had made a similar suggestion earlier this month, telling newsoutlet 20Minutos: ‘It’s a matter of logic; the fact that the entire system goes down because of a photovoltaic plant makes no sense.

Keep reading

AGAIN? Spain Hit by Widespread Phone and Internet Outages Less Than a Month After Mass Blackouts

Led by a Socialist government and devoted to ‘Net-Zero’ climate fantasies, Spain has of late become increasingly unstable country when it comes to its unreliable infrastructure.

Not even a month ago, the country was plunged into darkness by a massive blackout, and today (20) a widespread internet and phone outage caused alarm in the population.

The Telegraph reported:

“Spain was hit by phone and internet blackouts on Tuesday morning, just weeks after a power failure plunged the country into darkness.

Landline and mobile services were brought down across the country after a botched system upgrade by Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica.”

The outage disrupted the lives of the population, and was particularly harmful to the work of emergency call operators.

The problems began at 2am local time, and initially affected land-lines mostly.

“Regions thought to be affected by the blackouts include the Basque Country, Andalusia, Aragon and Extremadura.”

A spokesman for telecom giant Telefonica said around lunchtime that the issue was resolved.

“The spokesman added: ‘This morning we had an incident that affected the fixed communications services of some companies and public services. We have been working from the outset to restore these services, which have now been fully recovered’.”

Keep reading

Trump officials allow NY wind farm project to resume construction following intervention from Hochul, Adams

The Trump administration lifted a stop-work order that threatened over 1,000 jobs at a wind farm project off the coast of Long Island Monday — at the behest of Gov. Kathy Hochul and Big Apple Mayor Eric Adams.

Construction at the Empire Wind 1 site was halted on April 16 after the Department of the Interior concluded that the project and its permit approval were “rushed through” by the Biden administration.

The project, just one cog in New York’s grander push to become fossil fuel-free by 2050, is set to power 500,000 homes through green energy provided by wind turbines. It has faced steep criticism from Nassau County officials, who claim that the project threatens marine life and the local fishing industry.

Hochul promised to fight the stop-work order the same day it was put into place, noting that the bipartisan plan had “already put shovels in the ground.”

“I knew this critical project needed to move forward and have spent weeks pushing the federal government to rescind the stop work order to allow the workers to return and ensure this important source of renewable power could come to fruition,” Hochul said.

“I want to thank President Trump for his willingness to work with me to save the 1,500 good-paying union jobs that were on the line and helping get this essential project back on track. New York’s economic future is going to be powered by abundant, clean energy that helps our homes and businesses thrive. I fought to save clean energy jobs in New York — and we got it done.”

Keep reading

13 Republicans press leadership for more flexibility in green energy tax credit phaseout

A group of 13 House Republicans is asking for more flexibility for climate-friendly tax credits than what’s in the party’s current budget bill, underscoring the difficulty of getting the entire party on the same page.

In a written statement posted by Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) on the social platform X, the 13 Republicans ask House leadership to “consider three thoughtful changes” to the legislation that phases out a significant chunk of Democrats’ tax credits for low carbon energy sources. 

They point to provisions that are expected to make it difficult for energy companies to actually claim the credits during this phaseout period.

Specifically, they ask for more flexibility on newly proposed supply chain requirements and a provision that could make it more difficult for projects to get financing. They also ask for more time, saying the credit phaseout should be based on when projects “start construction” rather than when they’re “placed in service.”

“The last thing any of us want to do is provoke an energy crisis or cause higher energy bills for working families,” they said.

Keep reading