Renewable Energy

The $20 Trillion Question

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The above images put into perspective the scale of William Murray’s issue in his Real Clear Energy article regarding energy investments The $20 Trillion Question: How to Spend It and How Not To.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

$20 trillion is a lot of money. One would expect a big bang to follow the spending of twenty-thousand billion dollars. It’s a lot of money! It’s pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.

This is the sum that was globally spent — largely by Europe and the United States — in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy. China, in contrast, sold the world windmills and solar panels while it opened a new coal-fired power plant per month.

What was the net effect of this “Green” Marshall Plan? Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.

We also saw the de-industrialization of the European and American economies — not just with higher prices at the gas pump and on electric bills, but a stealth green tax that was passed on to consumers on everything. This is the culprit of our American and global affordability crisis.

So much treasure and pain for a 2 percent reduction in the share of hydrocarbons.

What a tilting-at-windmills waste. The worst bang for the public and private buck ever. Yet, the Chicken Little believers of the Church of Settled Science and the grifters who profited from it will still sing in unison that it failed because they did not go far enough. If only the global community spent and regulated more!

In contrast, the actual Marshall Plan (which ran from 1948 to 1951) rebuilt a decimated Europe into an industrial, interconnected, peaceful powerhouse. It was a great success by any measure. At the time, its price tag was huge: $13.3 billion in nominal 1948-1951 dollars, which is the equivalent of approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars.

Since a trillion is such a large number, let’s divide $20 trillion by an inflation-adjusted Marshall plan of $150 billion and we have 133 Marshall opportunities. Money was not the problem. To give a sense of the comparative bang-for-buck, by the Marshall program’s end, the aggregated Gross National Product (GDP) of the participating nations rose by more than 32 percent, and industrial output increased by a remarkable 40 percent.

President Trump has been on the global-funding rounds and has secured upwards of $18 trillion in investments. He has secured the equivalent of 120 Marshall Plans — just 2 shy of $20 trillion — to be invested here and nowhere else.

Unlike NAFTA — where the rich got richer under the banner of free markets and in exchange America’s underemployed families got cheaper goods — Trump’s is a recipe for prosperity for all Americans.

Making these investments an American reality will require a growing army of blue- and white-collar workers. With the wealth that it creates, our debt could be paid down and, finally, off. Social Security and Medicare would be placed on a solid footing for time immemorial. All our public obligations to each other would be paid from ever-growing prosperity and not from borrowed money and strangling debt service.

Nothing approaching this level of intentional investment in one country has ever been done. Yes, a similar tranche of greenbacks was burnt to no noticeable environmental benefit and great economic hardship for all. And yes, the American economy under the guise of comparative advantage sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutering the American dream.

Trump’s Plan is the opposite of both failed experiments. Like the original Marshall plan, Trump’s is a recipe for the re-industrialization of the American economy and military, and it is not going to be fueled by windmills and solar farms but with hydrocarbons and uranium. That’s the Trump Plan. It has merit.

Yet, if we look at the polls, Trump is underwater and his base show signs of stress fractures. You bring peace to the Middle East, stop 6 other wars, and bring in some $20 trillion in America First-investments within your first year, and you come home to find yourself underwater and called a lame duck. Democracies — even Democratic Republics — are known to be fickle and hard to please, but this is still rich — and it will result in poverty, which is the opposite of affordability if it continues.

Without the use of tariffs and his deal making, there would not be $20 trillion looking to onshore to the United States. You can blame Trump for higher costs on bananas and coffee. But it’s the cost of electricity and healthcare — not the cost of coffee and bananas — that are roiling kitchen-table economics.

Vice President JD Vance recently made the right call for popular and populist patience. Those who are impatient should look at the offsets already passed, like no taxes on social security, tips, and overtime. That helps pay for bananas and coffee and then some.

My fellow Americans, these sovereign wealth funds that are presently lining up on our water’s edge are coming here based on promises made from a can-do president speaking for a can-do nation. While Trump is a can-do guy, are “We the People” presently a can-do people? Or, do we at least want to return to becoming a can-do people again? The “can’t do” forces are legion and they are the ones now championing the affordability crisis that they caused.

When America was a can-do nation, we built the Empire State Building
in a year. Today, it would take years to get a permit.

Those willing to invest such money will require some certitude that the power they’ll need will be there to “build, baby, build.” If not, the money and the opportunity will pass before it has the possibility to take needed root.

And what about us, the American family, worker, and business that continues to struggle under the legacy of throttling energy privation? In short, we all have a common good — a shared interest — in righting the wrongs that control our grid and our nation’s future.

The good news is that a bill was introduced in the House during the government shutdown. It’s called the “Affordable, Reliabile, Clean Energy Security Act.” Unlike Obamacare, which clocked in at 903 pages, this bill is a lean 763 words, that, if it became law — and it should — would change everything for the better. (Unlike Obamacare, which is recipe for un-affordability).

Mr. President, your one beautiful bill was missing this one thing. Your short- and long-term, America First ambitions are dramatically increased by making this bill into law before the midterm elections. Connect the state siting of these investments to Democrat support of the bill and you will find it on your desk before the midterms. Executive orders don’t offer the energy security that these investors require and that the American people deserve.

$20 trillion is a lot of money. Coming to our shores is a new lease on the American experiment as we enter our 250th birthday hopelessly divided and broke. Let us come together and solve not just the affordability crisis but set the conditions of greatness for the next 250 years.

 

See also:

How Wasteful is Green Energy? Count the Ways

 

Net Zero and British Grid: Dire Straits (Kathryn Porter)

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Kathryn Porter’s recent article on the plight of UK’s electrical grid at her blog: Electrification – can the grid cope? The excerpt below provides findings from her new research paper, available at the link above.

Electrification has become the default answer to almost every energy and climate question. Heat? Electrify it. Transport? Electrify it. Industry? Electrify it. In policy circles, electrification is often treated as a frictionless substitute for fossil fuels: cleaner, simpler, and largely inevitable. In this new report I take a look at what electrification would mean for the GB power grid, if it went ahead as planned. I also consider the impact of additional demand from AI data centres.

Electrification policy rests on optimistic assumptions

Across heating, transport and industry, electrification targets rely on a similar set of assumptions:

♦  that consumers will change behaviour rapidly,
♦  that costs will fall quickly and predictably, and
♦ that electricity infrastructure will expand smoothly to accommodate new demand.

The report tests these assumptions sector by sector and finds them wanting.

The good news is that electrification targets are unlikely to be met without some form of compulsion. In heating, rapid deployment of heat pumps is implausible under current conditions. Consumer resistance remains high, installer numbers are growing too slowly, and both capital and running costs are materially higher than for gas heating. Even where heat‑pump subsidies reduce upfront costs, households still face additional expenditure on larger emitters, pipework and insulation, as well as higher ongoing energy bills because electricity prices remain far above gas prices. These are not marginal issues – they are fundamental barriers to mass adoption.

Transport electrification faces a similar gap between ambition and delivery. Mandates for electric vehicles are running ahead of public willingness to adopt them, while grid and charging‑infrastructure constraints remain severe. These problems are magnified for larger vehicles. There is currently no credible fast‑charging solution for HGVs, and electrifying buses outside dense urban centres is far more challenging than policy documents typically acknowledge, particularly where vehicles do not return regularly to a single depot.

In industry, the constraint is both technical feasibility and economic viability. High electricity prices have driven deindustrialisation across large parts of the UK economy, reducing electricity demand far more quickly than electrification can increase it. In practice, deindustrialisation is the dominant trend, and a stronger driver of demand than electrification across the economy as a whole.

Across all three sectors, the modelling used by both NESO and the Climate Change Committee depends on behavioural and technological assumptions that are optimistic, weakly evidenced, and often inconsistent across scenarios. My report does not assume electrification will fail entirely, but it does find that current targets are unlikely to be met without significant compulsion, which brings its own political and social risks.

The system is under strain even without electrification

The bad news is that, even without electrification, the electricity grid is likely to struggle unless action is taken. One of the most important findings of my report is that the GB electricity system is already heading towards a serious adequacy problem even if large‑scale electrification largely fails.

Renewables cannot provide security of supply during prolonged low‑wind winter events, and reliance on interconnectors is risky when neighbouring systems face similar weather patterns. Meanwhile, just under 5 GW of nuclear generation is scheduled to close by 2032 at the latest, and around 12 GW of CCGT capacity is at risk of closure due to age and declining utilisation.

While Hinkley Point C and perhaps a small amount of new open‑cycle gas capacity may come online over the next five to seven years, this does not come close to offsetting expected closures. Under plausible assumptions, the system could face a capacity shortfall of around 12 GW on cold, low‑wind winter days.

In such conditions, meeting demand without rationing would be impossible.

Replacing or upgrading ageing gas generation is constrained by long lead times. New rotors typically require around 5 years, and entirely new gas turbines 7-8 years, reflecting global supply‑chain bottlenecks. These are physical constraints that cannot be resolved by market reform or policy ambition alone.

Britain is not alone in facing a potential problem with system adequacy. Norway, the Netherlands and Germany were all considered as part of the report and in each case, possible shortages are identified. Norway assumes that flexibility, demand response, or batteries will full the gap. The Dutch are less confident and intend to monitor the generation mix in neighbouring countries in the hope of persuading them to maintain enough firm generation to secure the Dutch grid on low wind days. Only Germany has explicitly identified a need to build more gas generation, although its target is likely inadequate.

Europe at night from space NASA 2016

Flexibility helps, but does not replace firm capacity

One of the report’s central findings is that electrification does not increase demand evenly. Heat pumps, EV charging, and industrial electrification all tend to concentrate demand in time (cold evenings, post‑work charging windows), and concentrate demand in space (residential feeders, urban substations, motorway corridors).

Annual energy numbers hide this  – a system can look comfortable
on a terawatt‑hour basis while becoming acutely
stressed for a few hundred hours a year.

Flexibility features heavily in electrification plans with smart charging, demand response, batteries, and thermal storage. While flexibility can shave peaks, this only works where consumers tolerate loss of convenience. In many cases, policymakers ignore real-world constraints such as fire risks associated with overnight operation of domestic appliances, and noise restrictions within multi-occupancy residential buildings. Batteries are energy‑limited and cannot cover prolonged stress events. Many flexibility services depend on digital systems that introduce new operational and cyber risks. Flexibility may reduces costs at the margin, but it does not eliminate the need for firm capacity, resilient networks, or system strength.

Infrastructure challenges present further risks

In addition to the issues with reliable generation capacity, there are further difficulties with distribution and transmission constraints which arrive earlier and are also hard to fix quickly. Key points from the report include:

  • Local distribution networks were not designed for mass electrification of heat and transport
  • Reinforcement timelines are measured in years, and often a decade or more
  • Connection queues and “paper capacity” obscure real‑world deliverability

The report also identifies risks with aging grid infrastructure and the recently identified risks that premature closure of offshore gas pipelines may constrain gas supplies to the grid on cold winter days, limiting the gas available for electricity generation.

What this means in practice

Taken together, the findings point to an uncomfortable conclusion. The GB electricity system is likely to struggle to maintain today’s level of demand reliably, let alone accommodate the additional 7–10 GW of load in 2030 implied by current electrification agendas. AI data centres are therefore likely to pursue off‑grid solutions, not because of technological failure but because the grid is no longer perceived as sufficiently reliable for mission‑critical loads.

Large‑scale electrification of heat and industry before 2030 appears improbable, and likely remains so for several years thereafter. Without decisive policy action, the probability of regional rationing, blackouts and cascading grid failures rises materially.

To restore Britain’s energy security, government must
pivot from aspirational modelling to credible planning.

This means:

♦  supporting life extension of ageing gas generation,
♦  accelerating procurement of new dispatchable capacity,
♦  reforming network investment incentives to prioritise resilience, and
♦  reassessing electrification timelines.

Net zero targets cannot be allowed to override public safety.
Security of supply must once again become
the foundational principle of UK energy policy.

UK Goes Full Nut Zero

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Chris Morrison at Daily Sceptic reports on the latest UK insane climate policy proposal Net Zero Conservative MPs Promote Scheme to Cover Ponds With Solar Panels That’s Completely Quackers. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images

Your correspondent has a confession. I need to get up at least two hours earlier to keep abreast of all the current madness that is Net Zero. The un-walked dog will have to go back to resuming her slumbers on the best seat in the house while I digest the latest reports piling trillions of pounds onto the realistic cost of the Net Zero fantasy. Long hours must be spent trying to work out how the sinister Miliband plans to make household energy cheaper by giving billions to useless, unreliable wind and solar, and then sticking the horrendous costs straight onto consumer bills. “Cheaper than gas!” this still-at-large lunatic is apparently still howling. Then I would have time for a good laugh with the really dumb stuff. And none dafter than the recent suggestion from the Green Blob-funded Conservative Environment Network (CEN) to blanket inland water areas with solar panels, killing local aquatic life and tricking diving birds into crashing into them.

If they were bats mistaking floating solar panels for water, hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of pounds would need to be spent constructing elaborate protecting tunnels (okay, I know the Sun will not be able to shine on the panels, but it doesn’t much anyway in the winter, and I am just making it all up, like everyone else in the Net Zero business). The last Conservative government allowed spending of £120 million to protect a few rare bats by building a 1,000-metre tunnel on the new high-speed railway from London to Birmingham.

The bat protection structure runs for 1km over the railway line, costing £120m.

But then perhaps such magic money-tree largesse would not be available for water bird-whacking solar panels – ‘green’ technology is good and different rules apply. Bats are killed in their millions worldwide by giant wind turbines, but nobody gives a flying squeak about that.

The CEN wants the UK Government to cut red tape to “unleash” solar farm developments on “man-made bodies of water” and to help projects selling power to the electricity grid. It is claimed that red tape has put a straitjacket on private investment in the UK floating solar industry. Man-made water areas are said to include disused docks and quarries along with on-farm reservoirs. CEN wants to encourage water companies to build solar farms on the 570 reservoirs that exist in the UK, potentially generating 2.7 terawatt-hours of electricity.

Waiving local planning rules for unreliable energy projects is much in fashion with the national political parties, particularly Labour and the Conservatives, who face forthcoming local election humiliation at the hands of the surging anti-Net Zero Reform Party.

Many long-standing pools of freshwater, whether originally man-made
or not, become vibrant centres of aquatic and avian life.

Dumping huge solar panels on the surface is a considerable nature killer. A paper published last month in Environmental Science and Technology examined the interaction of birds and floating solar panels and concluded that their industrial structure could pose “significant risk” to certain bird species, especially those with limited visual acuity and flight manoeuvrability adapted to aquatic habitats. Birds most at risk were said to be waterfowl, shorebirds and gulls.

The big danger for birds is one of fatal collision with solar panels that replicate the surface of water. It can affect birds diving for food but is a particular problem for aquatic species that land harder and faster on water. The panels also present problems for birds that require a ‘runway’ to take off. Overall, the survey suggests fatalities of around 11.61 birds per megawatt generated per year. Needless to say, there are other ecological concerns that will need to be ignored by Net Zero fanatics. With even limited panel coverage there will be changes in shading, dissolved oxygen levels and water temperature. These create altered microclimates and disrupt food chains.

The CEN looks forward to generating 2.7 terawatts from panelling over the ponds, a power source that, due to its appalling unreliability, will further destabilise Britain’s already creaking grid. It is the latest quack scheme produced by an operation supported by 49 Conservative MPs that remains dedicated to the Net Zero lunacy. This caucus, which represents a significant 41% of the current parliamentary party, is a substantial roadblock to attempts by the party’s leadership to move away from all the Net Zero hysteria that has engulfed the Conservatives over the last two decades. Attempts last year by the leader Kemi Badenoch to ditch the 2050 Net Zero commitment were met by the CEN director Sam Hall complaining to the Guardian that the move “undermines the significant environment legacy of successive Conservative governments”.

But politics is a fluid business in the modern Conservative party. The CEN parliamentary group includes Simon Hoare and Sir Roger Gale, the two midwit buffers who intended to vote last year for a society-destroying private bill that would have cut all hydrocarbon use in the UK to 10% within 10 years. On the other hand, it also counts Esther McVey, who recently informed Talk Radio that Net Zero was a “dud”.

How Wasteful is Green Energy? Count the Ways

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Waste #1:  Money Spent, Projects Unknown

“Oxfam finds that for World Bank projects, many things can change during implementation. On average, actual expenditures on the Bank’s projects differ from budgeted amounts by 26–43% above or below the claimed climate finance. Across the entire climate finance portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this difference amounts to US$24.28–US$41.32 billion,” the report states.

“No information is available about what new climate actions were supported and which planned actions were cut. Now that the Bank has touted its focus on understanding and reporting on the impacts of its climate finance, it is critical to stress that without a full understanding of how much of what the Bank claims as climate finance at the project approval stage becomes actual expenditure, it is impossible to track and measure the impacts of the Bank’s climate co-benefits in practice.”

“Oxfam’s report doesn’t suggest funds are missing but points to a transparency issue that makes it difficult to know precisely what the Bank is delivering in terms of climate finance: where it’s going and what it’s supporting.”

Thus, “contrary to claims online,” it’s not missing. It’s just not accounted for! At this point, I’m not sure which is the bigger racket: dubious national or supranational funding of projects that fall loosely under the aegis of purported climate change mitigation, or fact-checking. At least this can be said about fact-checking: It costs a hell of a lot less.

Waste #2:  Money Spent, Projects Dicey

For an idea of how much money is being gambled on Green Energy or “CleanTech” projects here is a chart for North America from The Big Green Machine:

How Risky are these projects? An article at Mish Talk explores the question: How Many More Ridiculous Green Energy Projects Will Fail? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The answer is all of them, in due time. Here are the latest spectacular failures.

Birds Fry Every Two Minutes

It took 10 years, and hundreds-of-thousands of dead birds, before
the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California would meet its fate.

Now finally here in 2025 it seems the reckoning has begun. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes in an editorial that “a major California utility —  Pacific Gas & Electric — announced that it will no longer buy power from the Ivanpah solar plant off Interstate 15 near the Nevada-California border. As a result, two of the plant’s three towers will shut down next year — and the third will probably follow.”

Performance has proven so poor that PG&E has exercised its right to terminate the contract, about which negotiations have been completed; there is no doubt that towers 1 and 3 will cease operations within roughly a year. And it appears to be the case that Edison too wants out: “the utility is in ‘ongoing discussions’ with the project’s owners and the federal government over ending the utility’s contract.”

New Jersey Reaps the Wind, Again

It’s not just solar. Also note that Shell just backed out of a wind-energy project despite huge subsidies.

Another offshore wind development stalled this week off the Jersey shore, making it the latest of three such projects to fail despite generous terms from the state. Energy giant Shell wrote off its 50% stake in Atlantic Shores, choosing to take a $1 billion impairment instead of complete the 2,800 megawatt wind farm. New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities canceled its request for a wind-energy provider, leaving the unfinished project with no prospective customer.

Ratepayers can rejoice. Atlantic Shores would have charged about three times the market price for the power it generated, according to a review by Whitestrand Consulting. That would have raised electricity rates by 11% for residents and 13% to 15% for businesses, forcing them to overpay by $48 billion over the wind farm’s lifetime.

Waste # 3 A Mountain of Unrecyclable Waste

The Institute for Energy Research notes Broken Windmill Blade Closes Nantucket Beaches

A massive wind turbine blade shattered offshore Massachusetts causing extensive debris, which shut down beaches on Nantucket Island and caused serious concern to fishermen, who worried that the debris could damage their boats. The failure of the massive blade and the resulting debris caused the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to suspend operations at Vineyard Wind until it could be determined whether the “blade failure” impacts other turbine blades on the development of the offshore wind farm. Power production has been suspended and installation of new wind turbine construction is on hold. And as more green energy trash washes ashore the local town is considering litigation. The facility’s massive wind turbines began sending electricity to the grid this past winter.

Thousands of Old Wind Turbine Blades Pile Up in West Texas Officials in Sweetwater say an out-of-state company has made their town a dump for the seldom-seen trash created by renewable energy.

Wind turbine blades are made from fiberglass, or fiber reinforced plastic, and cannot be recycled. The Biden-Harris administration has not indicated what or who it expects to deal with the mountain of waste that will result when thousands of turbine blades reach the end of their useful lives in 20 to 25 years, or in many cases less. In fact, wind blades are piling up in Texas and Iowa without proper disposal. Massive wind graveyards, for example, have popped up on the outskirts of Sweetwater, Texas. The pile of wind blades covers more than thirty acres, in stacks rising as high as basketball backboards.

Waste #4 Money Spent, Operational Failures

Economic Reality

Let’s return to economic reality.  None of these projects are profitable, even with subsidies. That’s why they fail.  Meanwhile, consumers face monstrous hikes in energy bills to pay for these boondoggles as mounds of unrecyclable garbage piles up in massive wind graveyards.

The Green Machine provides the project categories in colors denoting Batteries, EVs, Solar and Wind.

The BESS Failure Incident Database provides a record of costly problems with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)

Figure 1. A breakdown of the stationary energy storage failure events from the above table.

EV Boosters reports EV Business Failures Abound

The Chinese electric vehicle (EV) boom has turned into a dramatic shakeout. Around 2018, China had more than 500 EV startups registered. These included everything from serious automotive disruptors to local government-backed ventures that never made it past the prototype phase. What do we mean by “EV startup”? In this context, it includes any newly registered Chinese company involved in the design, development, or production of new energy vehicles (NEVs) — including electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen cars. Many were speculative projects, created quickly to benefit from generous state subsidies, often with minimal automotive expertise. While a few had serious ambitions and advanced prototypes, the vast majority never got a vehicle on the road. By 2025, only around 100 of these brands remain active. Analysts from McKinsey predict that by 2030, fewer than 50 Chinese EV companies will survive. This is not just a story of collapse, but also of market maturation, consolidation, and strategic realignment.

SolarInsure Lists the Many Solar Business Failures

Major Solar Bankruptcies as of September 2025 Include:

Waste #5 Green Hydrogen Projects–Absurd, Exorbitant and Pointless

The map above from IEA shows more than 2200 hydrogen fuel projects around the world, intending to replace hydrocarbon fuels to save the planet.  They dream of being operational by 2030 claiming that real world obstacles will be overcome if enough taxpayer dollars are thrown at the problems.  The whole notion is fantastic (in the literal sense) for reasons detailed in a previous post.

Inside the Hydrogen Fuel Project Bubbles

An update on project cancellations comes from Hydrogen Newsletter The Green Hydrogen Reckoning: An Analysis of Project Cancellations

Project Name / Identifier Lead Company / Developer(s) Location  Announced Capacity / Scale Project Status Date of Announcement / Status Change
Arizona Hydrogen Project Fortescue Arizona, USA 80 MW electrolyzer, 11,000 t/yr H2 Cancelled (Post-FID) Jul-25
PEM50 Project Fortescue Gladstone, Australia 50 MW PEM electrolyzer Cancelled (Post-FID) Jul-25
H2OK Project Woodside Energy Oklahoma, USA 60 t/d liquid H2 Cancelled Jul-25
Massena Green Hydrogen Plant Air Products Massena, New York, USA $500M, 35 t/d liquid H2 Cancelled Feb-25
Mississippi Clean Hydrogen Hub Hy Stor Energy Mississippi, USA >1 GW electrolyzer capacity reservation Cancelled Sep/Oct 2024
HyGreen Teesside Project BP Teesside, UK 500 MW green hydrogen Cancelled Mar-25
Australian Renewable Energy Hub BP Australia $36 billion green hydrogen facility Exited Jul-25
Low-Carbon Hydrogen Plant Shell West Coast, Norway Not specified Cancelled Sep-24
Clean Hydrogen to Europe Equinor / Shell Norway to Germany 10 GW blue hydrogen export Scrapped Sep-24
German Steel Plant Conversion ArcelorMittal Germany Two plants, €2.5 billion plan Shelved Jun-25
Global Green Hydrogen Target Iberdrola Global 350,000 tons/yr target Scaled Back Mar-24
Green Hydrogen Production Target Repsol Spain 2.5 GW target Scaled Back Feb-25
Green Energy Hub LEAG Eastern Germany “One of Europe’s largest” Postponed Indefinitely Jun-25
Porvoo Renewable Hydrogen Neste Porvoo, Finland Not specified Withdrew from investment Oct-24
Port Pirie Green Hydrogen Plant Trafigura South Australia, Australia A$750 million Abandoned Mar-25
Queensland Liquefied H2 Plant QLD Gov’t, Kansai Electric, Iwatani Queensland, Australia A$12.5 billion, 200 t/d Funding Pulled 2025
Project Coyote Fortescue British Columbia, Canada $2 billion H2/ammonia facility Cancelled Sep-24

The above table provides a non-exhaustive but representative catalogue of the major green hydrogen projects that have been cancelled, postponed, or significantly scaled back between 2023 and mid-2025, illustrating the global scale of this market recalibration.

With Wind and Solar More Is Less

Posted on by Ron Clutz

At their Energy Bad Boys website Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr published More is Less with Wind and Solar.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Capacity Values of Wind and Solar Plummet as Penetration Increases

With all the talk about needing to dramatically increase power supplies to meet the growing demand from data centers, as well as for anticipated electric vehicle adoption and other electrification efforts, it’s time to highlight one glaring reality of filling that demand with wind and solar—the reality of diminishing returns.

As in: the more intermittent capacity you add, the less capacity value you get from it. When it comes to wind and solar, more is less.

How it Works

Electric grids and utilities across the country assign reliability ratings to wind and solar resources—called capacity values—and these values diminish to almost zero as the system adds more wind and solar.

This reality is lost on—or intentionally obfuscated by—many wind and solar advocates who like to brag about current high capacity values for wind and solar without mentioning the fact that these values plummet as you add more wind and solar to the grid.

What Are Capacity Values?

The term “capacity value” is defined by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as “the contribution of a power plant to reliably meeting demand. Capacity value is the contribution that a plant makes toward the planning reserve margin…”

Basically, capacity values are percentages of total installed capacity for each energy source that electric grids believe they can reliably count on to meet demand. It reflects the idea that while every energy source has a maximum capacity that it can reach under ideal conditions, not every energy source can reliably perform at these ratings at any given time and when needed.

Limitations of current capacity value methods

Current methodologies for calculating wind and solar capacity values have several limitations that need to be considered when referencing them as reliability metrics.

The first limitation is that they are dependent on existing resources already on the grid. This means that if the generation makeup of the grid changes dramatically, as is happening on power systems across the country, this will have a significant negative impact on the capacity values of wind and solar.

Furthermore, they are also dependent on current load profiles, which are also anticipated to change in major ways with the emergence of data center load growth.

Finally, many capacity values are based on average performance, and not during the highest stress hours for maintaining system reliability, such as peak demand or net peak demand (demand minus wind and solar generation). As a result, capacity values may not assess the reliability of wind and solar when they are needed most, which can lead to an overreliance on them for meeting peak and net peak demand.

Wind and solar capacity values plummet as the system adds more

Now that the basics are out of the way, let’s discuss the reality that many wind and solar advocates avoid: that every megawatt of wind and solar added to the system is less reliable than the one before it.

Wind and solar capacity values fall as more of these resources are added to the grid because their output patterns are often correlated—the sun sets over an entire continent or concentrated wind turbines experience a wind drought—and they are non-dispatchable. As a result, adding more of the same variable resource reaches a point where the resource does not meaningfully contribute to reliability.

Referring back to the methods above, this means that the more wind and solar you add, the less the load can increase on the system or the less perfect capacity can be removed, thus increasing the denominator of the equation at a higher rate than the numerator.

This is reflected by diminishing capacity values for wind and solar in several major regional transmission operators (RTOs) in the country, which we detail below.

Map of Diminishing Capacity Values for Major RTOs

For a summary comparison, the map above shows the current capacity values of wind and solar in major RTOs across the country and how they are all expected to decline in the future as more are added to the system.

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)

In almost every season for wind and solar capacity values plummet and reach as low as .4 percent for solar in winter and 8.6 percent for wind in fall by 2043. The one exception to this is wind in the summer months, which actually increases from 8 percent in 2025/26 to 11.5 percent in 2030 before falling again to 8.9 percent by 2043. Still not a great reliability rating compared to coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear, which range from 64 percent to 95 percent in every single season.

In its 2024 Regional Resource Assessment, MISO explains that even though wind and solar will make up the vast majority of installed capacity in the future, reliable/accredited capacity will still be made up of primarily thermal resources.

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM)

PJM shows a similar story. While onshore wind and offshore wind begin at 41 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the 2027/28 planning year, these resources drop to 19 percent and 26 percent by 2035/36.  Solar already starts at a low capacity value, dropping from 7—9 percent in 2027/28 to 6—7 percent by 2035/36. PJM explains:

-The ratings for the two solar classes remain stable at low values during the entire period due to the high level of winter risk

-The ratings for the two wind classes decrease significantly due to a gradual shift in winter historical performance patterns driving the winter risk in the model (as shown in the above tables)

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)

ERCOT shows a similar effect as more wind and solar are added to the system, as the same trend can be seen in the following charts.  As you can see, as more solar is added to the grid, the ELCCs drop to the 0—2 percent range, even with significant amounts of wind capacity on the grid.  Similarly, as more wind is added to the ERCOT system, wind ELCCs drop into the 5—10 percent range.

We hear a lot about the complementary nature of wind and solar generation in ERCOT. While this is true to some extent, these results show that even this has its limits when relying on large amounts of wind and solar capacity for meeting demand because complementary generation won’t always be the case, and there will be times when both resources perform poorly at the same time.

Southwest Power Pool (SPP)

For Southwest Power Pool, solar values are fairly high at the moment, ranging from 55 percent to 74 percent, because it has very few solar resources on the grid, while wind is much lower, ranging from 19 percent to 26 percent, because it is already saturated with wind resources.

Conclusion

The trend is simple enough to catch—the more wind and solar are added, the less valuable every additional MW becomes to the grid. The New York ISO (NYISO) makes the case clear in its 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlook report:

One complex challenge that needs to be considered beyond 2040 is the relative ineffectiveness of new solar and wind resources to contribute during periods of reliability risk after a significant amount of capacity has been built.

This is an important reality to remember when wind and solar advocates try to present intermittent resources as reliable energy sources that are able to meet the power demand needs of the future.

The fact is that not only are wind and solar already intermittent and unreliable,
but they have diminishing returns as you add more of them.

As usual, we end with the recommendation of not only keeping our existing thermal fleet in operation for as long as possible, because they are often the most affordable and reliable power plants on the system, but also bringing back recently retired facilities and building new ones on top of it.

Texans, Don’t Mess With Emissions Reductions

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Gregory Wrightstone writes at Lone Star Standard; Texans should stop spending on fake climate crisis.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Boasting that Texas “has built more wind power than any state and is a top contender for the most solar power,” a Texas Tribune article bemoans a decline in federal subsidies for such energy sources and a potential loss of “billions in investments and thousands of jobs.”

Interestingly, the writers focus on business interests of the climate industrial complex and ignore the stated reason for subsidies – to avoid supposed catastrophic global warming. Planetary health – purported to be threatened by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – was not even an afterthought in the handwringing over wind and solar financial fortunes.

Regardless, Texans face no such peril and the billions already spent on “green” obsessions in the Lone Star State are for naught. “There is no evidence of a climate crisis in Texas and none can be reasonably expected,” says a report, “Texas and Climate Change,” recently published by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia.

Both the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) and a Texas A&M University report predict harm to Texans from human-induced warming. Climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness,” according to NCA5.

In contradicting those findings, the CO2 Coalition analyzed data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, reports published in peer-reviewed journals and others.

“The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” says the CO2 Coalition report. “Recent temperatures in Texas are similar to those found more than 100 years ago.”

In fact, the annual number of 100-degree days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.

While some have claimed a connection between climate change and July’s tragic flooding in central Texas, no scientific basis for such a link exists. Though extreme, the flooding was not a first.

According to Harris County meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the July 4th flood of the Guadalupe River at Kerrville peaked at 34.29 feet, making it the third-highest flood on record for the city. The 2025 flood crest trails the 39.0-foot flood crest from 1932 and the 37.72-foot flood crest from in 1987.

“Over the last 28 years, flash floods, while varying greatly from year to year, have actually been in slight decline,” the CO2 Coalition report found.

Precipitation data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network indicate that Texas has experienced a very slight increase (1 to 2 inches annually) in precipitation since 1895, which is contrary to the predictions of significant increases in rainfall from climate alarmists. If anything, the modest increase in Texas precipitation should have beneficial effects on the state’s agricultural yields.

As for drought – the primary scourge of crops throughout the world – government data show no discernable trend in the severity of arid spells in Texas, which is a direct contradiction to claims of increasing drought by both the Texas A&M report and NCA5.

Similarly rebutting the fearmongering of alarmists, the CO2 Coalition report found no increasing trends for wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes.

With respect to tornadoes, the U.S., including Texas, has seen a decades-long decline in the most violent of twisters. The likely reason is a warming Earth – a natural phenomenon following the end of the Little Ice Age – reduces the temperature differentials between regions inside and outside equatorial regions that drive storms.

Like the rest of the world, Texas has experienced record-breaking growth in crop production over the last several decades. This is no coincidence, as research shows every increase of 1 part per million (ppm) in CO2 concentration boosts yields of corn and wheat by 0.4% and 1%, respectively. Based on these metrics, the 140-ppm increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has led to increases of 56%, 84% and 140% in corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively.

CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, and reducing emissions of the gas would be harmful to vegetation, including forests, grasslands and agricultural crops.

Even if Texas could stop emitting CO2, the amount of atmospheric warming averted would be only 0.0093 degrees and 0.0237 degrees by 2050 and 2100, respectively. These changes are negligible and cannot be felt or measured.

If the reason for spending on Texas climate policy were to enrich wind and solar developers, then, yes, lamentations over the demise of subsidies are understandable. However, there is no basis for spending a cent on a fake crisis – and certainly not on technologies that offer no benefit.

Anti-Tornado Tech Better Than Mitigation?

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.”

CO2 Coalition Texas Report is here.  My snyopsis is :

No Climate Crisis in Texas

New England Facing Energy Crisis, Worries About Bugs

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Linnea Lueken explains the false alarm in her Climate Realism article Climate Change Is Not Causing New England’s ‘Creepy’ Bacteria and Bugs, Boston Globe.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Boston Globe posted an article titled “Climate change is bringing creepy — and dangerous — bacteria, bugs, and viruses to New England,” claiming that global warming is “fueling an increase in bacteria and disease” in New England. The headline and the attached story are highly misleading. For things like mosquito-borne illness, mosquitos carrying diseases previously thrived even in New England in previous centuries, with 20th century human intervention wiping them out, not temperature changes. Also, bacteria in waterways are a seasonal phenomenon which has always existed.

The Real New England Crisis is Green Agenda Attack on Electricity Supply

Source: granitegeek, Concord Monitor

Daniel Turner explains in his Real Clear Energy article The Green Agenda Turned New England Into an Energy Price Punchline.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Fall is here, the leaves are changing, the temperature is dropping and sadly New England families know the routine.

Every month, the electric bill arrives, and it’s larger than the month before. The region pays more for electricity than almost anyone else in America—higher than the national average and, outside of Alaska and Hawaii, higher than anywhere else in the country. This is not a coincidence. It is the inevitable result of politicians who pushed the risky and unreliable green agenda while forcing reliable power plants off the grid.

Here’s an inconvenient history lesson. When Joe Biden took office, electricity in New England cost 20.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. By the time he left, it was more than 28.2 cents. That’s a staggering spike of more than 36% in just four years. Hundreds of dollars gone from family budgets and small businesses every single year. For working households already feeling the squeeze of Biden’s inflation, it can mean the difference between savings and debt, between heating a home and keeping it uncomfortably cold.

October 2022 generation in New England, by fuel source

And the blame is clear. The forced closure of coal, oil, and natural gas plants in the name of “climate progress” is why rates are climbing. In 2022, Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey traveled to Somerset to celebrate the shutdown of traditional energy plants. They smiled for the cameras, congratulated themselves on a “victory,” and then went back to Washington while families were left to pay the tab.

First came the celebration, but now we see the deflection. Four Democratic senators, including Warren and Markey, recently wrote a letter to the Trump administration suddenly pretending to care about rising electricity bills. It is political theater and nothing more. They didn’t care when they cheered the closures in 2022, and they don’t care now. New England’s families are stuck with the consequences of the green agenda they applauded; they just want to escape the blame.

Project abandoned in 2017 after New York blocked planning and permit processes.

Let’s be clear: This cascade of closures started when Joe Biden was vice president and accelerated under his presidency. Nearly 400 fossil fuel plants have been shuttered across the country since 2010, including almost 300 coal plants. In the Northeast alone, names like Indian Point in New York, Eagle Point in New Jersey, Schiller Station in New Hampshire, and Canal Station in Massachusetts have been crossed off the map. Each closure meant fewer megawatts of reliable power and higher bills for families.

 Project abandoned in April 2016

The problem is not complicated. Shutting down affordable, always-on power and replacing it with expensive, intermittent sources like wind and solar leads to higher prices. Add the surge in demand from artificial intelligence data centers, which analysts say could double electricity consumption by 2030, and the consequences are obvious: higher costs, weaker reliability, and a grid at the breaking point.

There is a way out of this crisis, but it requires real action, not pointless blaming. My organization, Power The Future, lays out the steps in our recent report.

♦  First, use the Defense Production Act to treat grid reliability as the national security issue it is, and direct resources to keep critical plants online.
♦  Second, build new fossil fuel plants—modern natural gas and coal facilities that can deliver decades of dependable, affordable power.
♦  Third, halt premature closures until replacement capacity is running, not just promised on paper. And fourth, expand the capacity of existing coal plants, many of which are running below potential thanks to political limits, to quickly add thousands of megawatts back to the grid.

These are not radical ideas. They are common sense. They put working families, not political slogans, at the center of energy policy. They recognize that you cannot run a 21st-century economy on wishful thinking, photo-ops, and subsidies for technology that fails when the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine.

Too many of New England’s “leaders” in Washington have turned their states into punchlines of America’s power prices. Working families deserve leaders who care more about their constituents’ bills than their standing with environmental activists. They deserve an energy policy grounded in reality, not ideology.

If you want to know who killed affordable power in New England, it wasn’t President Trump and it wasn’t the utility companies. All you need to do is just look at who popped the champagne when the plants closed.

 

 

 

Why Fossil Fuels Still Rule

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Kite & Key explain in their video, transcript in italics with my bolds and added images.

Tech executives.  Heads of state.  Brilliant scientists and engineers.

They’re some of the most talented and respected individuals in the world — and, in recent years, they’ve all come together behind a common purpose.

They’ve marshaled their talents — and trillions of dollars in cash — to move the world beyond the era of fossil fuels.

What can you accomplish when you have that much talent working towards a single goal?

Would you believe … almost nothing?

In recent years, the world has gone to extraordinary lengths to break its dependence on fossil fuels.

We’ve signed international treaties.

We’ve started enormous government programs.

We’ve launched corporate sustainability initiatives.

We’ve vandalized Stonehenge.

Not sure why that last one was necessary. Druids are about as low-carbon as they come.

Now, what do we have to show for all of these efforts to move beyond fossil fuels?

Well, it’s not nothing. But if you squint even just a little … it looks like nothing.

Here’s what we mean. Between 2015 and 2023, the world invested over $12 trillion in alternative energy. By the end of that period, we were investing nearly double as much in alternatives as we were in fossil fuels.i

And the consequences of all that effort?

Well, according to the International Energy Agency, in the decade from 2013 to 2023 the percentage of global energy derived from fossil fuels declined from 82 percent … to 80 percent.ii

Since 1965 oil, gas and coal (FF, sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 88% of PE consumed, ranging from 93% in 1965 to 81% in 2024. Source: Energy Institute

Now, none of this is to make fun of these efforts. The people behind these initiatives are often very, very smart. Which ought to make us even more curious about why they’re still not able to move the needle much.

Why, despite all their efforts, do fossil fuels continue to be the world’s primary energy sources?

Well, here’s the thing: It’s not because of a lack of money or initiative.
It’s because of the way energy actually works.

Because basically our entire existence — lighting and heating our homes, traveling to work, getting food onto the shelves of your grocery store — is dependent on energy, we need our power sources to be reliable, affordable, and abundant.  And on that front … fossil fuels have proven hard to beat.

There are a lot of reasons for that, but here are three of the biggest ones.

First: efficiency. Fossil fuels allow you to get a lot of energy out of very little material.

For example, to generate as much energy as you get from just one oil well in the Permian Basin of West Texas you’d need to build 10 windmills, each about 330 feet high.iii And because demand is only going up — the world uses 40 percent more energy now than it did just 20 years agoiv — we’re deeply dependent on whichever sources can give us the most bang for our buck.

To replace the electricity from now closed Indian Point nuclear plant would require covering Albany County with wind turbines.

Second: reliability. Energy buffs like to talk about something called the capacity factor, which in plain English means the amount of time a power source can generate its maximum amount of power. For solar, it’s less than 25 percent of the time. For wind, it’s about 34 percent. By contrast, coal is at over 42 percent and natural gas is at essentially 60 percent.v

Third: storage. Fossil fuels are easy and cheap to store, which is necessary to make sure you’ve got enough supply to know the lights will stay on.

How cheap? The costs of storing a barrel of oil or the equivalent amount of natural gas is about $1 a month. For coal, it’s even cheaper.vi To store the same amount of energy from wind or solar — which would require a lithium battery — costs 30 times as much.vii

All of which is to say that when you look at the physics and the economics
— you can start to see why America still gets more than
80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels.viii

Which, by the way, is pretty standard for wealthy countries: They talk a lot about renewables, but when it comes right down to it?

The U.K. gets about 75 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. As does Germany. In Japan it’s over 83 percent. In Australia it’s 85 percent.ix Not because they aren’t trying to move away from fossil fuels, but because they’re coming up against the reality that fossil fuels are the only sources that can give them as much power as their countries need.

There is, however, at least one noteworthy counterexample: France, which, as of 2023, relies on fossil fuels for less than 50 percent of its energy needs.x How do they do that? Well, here’s the catch: It’s not because of things like wind and solar. France gets over 1/3 of its power from nuclear, a carbon-free energy source that can run at full power over 92 percent of the time.xi

Which is an interesting idea … that the world’s wealthy democracies are largely ignoring. In fact, of the 61 new nuclear reactors currently being built around the world, 29 of them are in China.xii And many of the rest are in places like Bangladesh, Turkey, and Egypt.

But there’s one other factor we have to take into consideration when we think about why fossil fuels have endured — and it’s a big one. When we talk about energy, many of us think in terms of electricity. But in reality, America’s single largest use of energy is for transportation. And nearly 90 percent of that energy comes from oil.xiii

Why? Well, for a clarifying example, think about the journey of a package that you buy online. Maybe it comes from overseas on a cargo ship or, if you’re really fancy, a plane. It gets sent to a warehouse, loaded onto a truck, sent off to a series of processing centers, and then arrives seamlessly … on your neighbor’s porch, for some reason.

Now, this process is invisible to most of us, but if we tried to dramatically change the fuel sources involved … well, let’s just say we’d notice.

Want that package to come on an electric plane? Given the current limits of the technology, it could travel a distance of about 30 miles.xiv

Want it to cross the ocean on a battery-powered cargo ship? The journeys those vessels take can run anywhere from 15 to 50 days.xv The biggest battery available could get you … one day of power.xvi Which would ensure your package was speedily delivered to the bottom of the Western Pacific.

Want an electric big rig to move your package across the country? Because they can travel less than half as far as a normal truck before they have to recharge, are three times as expensive to buy, and would require trucking companies to roughly double their number of both drivers and vehicles, your package would arrive much later and be way more expensive.xvii

In fact, it’s estimated that moving to all-electric trucking would be so costly that on its own it’d create a one percent increase in inflation for the entire country.xviii

Bottom line: The decisions as to which energy sources we rely on aren’t arbitrary.
The world as we know it is powered by reliable fuel sources like
natural gas, oil, and — when we’ll allow it — nuclear.

Plenty of people would like to move beyond those sources in theory. But when they experienced what the world actually looks like without them — higher prices, slower travel, less reliable electricity — chances are there’d be a lot fewer takers.

Except the Druids. These dudes would be fine.

See Also

Why Dislike Solar Power

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Post on X by Chris Martz. In italics with my bolds and added images.

Why do I dislike solar so much? Because solar farms are a giant waste of land and natural resources. Let’s do some math.

To replace now closed Indian Point nuclear power plant would
require covering Albany county with solar panels.

A single 1,000-megawatt (MWe) nuclear reactor occupies ~1 mi² (640 acres) of land. Nuclear also has a capacity factor of 0.923, meaning a reactor will generate ~92.3% of the maximum theoretical amount of electrical energy in a year that it could have.

https://energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity Thus, a 1,000-MWe reactor will produce ~8.08 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, enough to power over 770,000 homes throughout the course of a year (assuming Americans purchase an average of 10.5 MWh per household per year).

🏠💡= [1,000 MW × (24 hours / day) × (365 days / year) × 0.923] / 10.5 MWh ≈ 770,046 homes On the contrary, a solar photovoltaic (PV) farm requires 5-10 acres per MW (we’ll assume an average of 7.5) Solar PV has a capacity factor of 0.234. Thus, a 1,000-MWe solar farm occupies ~7,500 acres of land, but it would only power ~195,223 homes assuming, once again, Americans purchase 10.5 MWh of electricity per year, on average.

🏠💡= [1,000 MW × (24 hours / day) × (365 days / year) × 0.234] / 10.5 MWh ≈ 195,223 homes So, you’d need ~4,000 MWe of installed solar capacity to power the same number of homes as a single 1,000 MWe nuclear power station, and ~46.2× the land area, not including the land required for enough battery storage. But, it gets even worse if you factor the battery storage required. Solar PV’s average output is 234 MW.

🔅= 1,000 MW × 0.234 = 234 MW per hour OR 5,616 MWh per day OR 39,312 MWh per week For a week’s worth of battery backup, it would require an additional 23,587.2 acres of land (assuming battery storage requires 0.6 acres /

Rooftop solar is fine. Installing it on the roofs of homes, stores, warehouses, etc. can be useful. But, doing this is not.

Snow covered solar panels at University of MIchigan.

See Also

Southwestern Solar: Bright Shining Disappointment

Green Energy Companies Going Down the Drain

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Three reports provide data on hollowing out the alternative energy (non-hydrocarbon) sector.  Firstly an update from E2 $22 Billion in Clean Energy Projects Cancelled in First Half of 2025; $6.7 Billion Cancelled in June.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Clean Economy Works | total projects cancelled, closed,
downsized by sector Aug. 2022-June 2025

*totals will not match overall figures as some projects are categorized into multiple sectors

Businesses canceled, closed, and scaled back more than $22 billion worth of new factories and clean energy projects in the first half of 2025 after cancelling another $6.7 billion in June alone, according to E2’s latest monthly analysis of clean energy projects tracked by E2 and the Clean Economy Tracker.

The latest wave of cancellations — affecting five battery, storage, and electric vehicle factories in Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Oregon — follows growing uncertainty among businesses as Congress was making the final push to effectively end federal clean energy tax credits. More than 5,000 jobs were lost to the cancellations and scales backs in June, bringing the total number of jobs lost to abandoned projects in 2025 to 16,500.

June’s cancellations were led by major automakers scaling back electric vehicle production investments. General Motors cancelled a $4.3 billion plan to expand its Orion plant in Michigan to build new electric pickups and instead shift its investments there to build 8-cylinder gas vehicles. Additionally, Toyota scaled back a $2.2 billion plan to retool a manufacturing plant in Indiana that was going to build a new three-row electric SUV, consolidating production to its Georgetown, Kentucky plant instead.

Cancellations, Closures, Downsizes

This tracking includes all projects, plants, operations, or expansions that were cancelled or closed since passage of the IRA in August 2022. This does not include announced layoffs that are not associated with a project downsizing unless there is a stated decease in production output. This list also does not include the transfer of project ownership, if production will continue under the new ownership, power purchasing agreements, or other similar type of announcements. Project delays or idling of facilities are not included unless there in an announced decrease in production or investment or unless the project will need to be restarted to proceed in the future.

A second report is from Big Green Machine  CLEAN ENERGY MANUFACTURING: TRUMP 47+ 7 MONTHS.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

What has happened to investment in US clean energy manufacturing and supply chains since Trump took office on January 20, 2025?  Our Trump + 7 month tracker below was updated on August 20, 2025. You can also read our 6-month report below or download the report.

The Big Green Machine: Trump + 6 months report (released on July 29, 2025, based on data through July 20, 2025).

Since Donald Trump took office on January 20, 2025, newly announced investments in clean energy manufacturing projects have slowed dramatically, while the number of projects that have been paused, canceled, or closed has skyrocketed. Projects are being paused, cancelled, and closed at a rate 6 times more than during the same period in 2024 and 30 times more than during the same period in 2023.

The Big Green Machine tracks investments in the supply chain, from mine to factory, in the wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicle industries. Over the past six months, 26 projects, totaling $27.6 billion in capital investment and creating 18,849 jobs, have been paused, canceled, or closed. During the same period, 29 new projects were announced, adding up to $3.0 billion in capital investment and 8,334 jobs.

This marks a dramatic reversal from the first six months of 2024. During that period, 54 new projects adding up to $15.9 billion in capital investment and 25,942 new jobs were announced. In comparison, 8 projects adding up to $4.1 billion in capital investment and 3,820 jobs were paused, canceled, or closed during the first six months of 2024.

That does not mean all activity in the clean energy sector has stopped. Since Trump took office, many previously announced projects have broken ground, started pilot production, or moved into full production. By our count, 39 projects adding up to $21.1 billion in capital investment and 25,269 jobs have advanced in the past six months. But the projects that are advancing are, on average, smaller in size than the projects that are slowing.

Other patterns are emerging with respect to which projects are advancing or slowing. Not surprisingly, projects counting on federal support in the form of loans and grants are more likely to be slowing. In addition, our tracking shows that projects located in communities with lower median household incomes and communities classified as disadvantaged are seeing a higher proportion of slowed projects, meaning that communities in need of opportunity are losing out.

Unlike the two above reports focusing on 2025 contractions, the third report from Canary media details the green energy bloodbath last year The cleantech companies that didn’t make it through 2024. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

From carbon removal startups to solar icons, the climate world saw a number of corporate flameouts this year. Here are some takeaways and lessons learned.

Examples included (among many others)

Solar sunsets

Arguably the most shocking cleantech corporate demise of 2024 was that of SunPower, a solar industry icon that grew from humble startup roots to a valuation in the billions, only to file for bankruptcy in August. Even as solar installations smash records in the U.S. and the federal government channels capital into onshoring solar panel production, SunPower found itself undone by China’s industrial policy might and its own boardroom missteps. High interest rates and other policy headwinds, like California’s NEM 3.0, didn’t help.  Also Ubiquitous Energy, Toledo Solar

Solar installer bloodbath

High interest rates and rooftop solar incentive shifts in leading states rippled through the long tail of residential solar installers and led to scores of bankruptcies in the past two years, an unprecedented collapse.

Here are a few of the larger casualties from this year: Sunworks, a residential and commercial solar installer, filed for bankruptcy in February. Founded in 2002, Sunworks had developed 224 megawatts of solar projects across 15 states and employed 640 people. Titan Solar operated in 16 states and abruptly shut down its operations in June. Utah-based residential solar company Lumio filed for bankruptcy in September.

Energy storage setbacks 

Armed with billions in investor capital, scores of storage startups have been aiming to dethrone energy stalwarts like lithium-ion and diesel generators — but in the words of The Wire’s Omar Little, ​“If you come at the king, you best not miss.”

These companies missed.  Sweden’s Northvolt, once valued by investors at almost $12 billion, filed for bankruptcy in November in the year’s biggest battery bust.  Ambri, an energy storage aspirant with technology based on the research of MIT professor Donald Sadoway, declared bankruptcy in May.  Richmond, California–based Moxion Power laid off 101 workers in June and shuttered its doors, following a wave of hype for its 75-kilowatt portable lithium-ion batteries that it hoped would replace diesel generators.  Two other notable failures in the storage sector:  Ionic Materials, a 40-person MIT spin-out developing battery materials, Australian flow battery firm Redflow.

Removing carbon one VC dollar at a time 

Running Tide was the largest marine carbon-removal startup and the first to sell ocean carbon credits. Its initial plan of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it in the ocean by growing and sinking kelp morphed into sinking wood chips coated with lime-kiln dust. Running Tide announced that it was folding in June after raising more than $54 million.

Unsustainable aviation

Chasing a clean fuels breakthrough, Fulcrum BioEnergy promised to transform municipal waste into sustainable aviation fuel through a low-emissions gasification process. Instead, the company incinerated hundreds of millions in funding from BP, United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Japan Airlines — and hundreds of millions more in municipal bonds. The firm ceased operations in May.  Also Universal Hydrogen 

Charger bankruptcy

Tritium, a major provider of high-speed EV chargers, went bust in April but found a buyer for its insolvent business in India-based Exicom, which claims it will keep Tritium’s U.S. factory in business. Tritium has sold roughly 13,000 chargers in 47 countries and claimed a 30 percent U.S. market share for direct-current fast chargers in 2023.

Zero to 60 and back to zero with EVs

Luxury EV maker Fisker went bankrupt again; electric-van maker Arrival went bankrupt and sold its assets to another struggling EV maker, Canoo, which is currently furloughing employees; Cake, a Swedish e-motorcycle startup, sold 6,000 bikes but filed for bankruptcy in February after raising more than $75 million.

Arcimoto, Faraday Future, Mullen Automotive, and Workhorse Group are publicly traded EV companies but are facing delisting warnings, paltry revenue, and valuations that are rapidly approaching zero. Nikola stock is down by 90 percent year to date.

Comment

These reports are from green energy enthusiasts and promoters, expressing concerns without questioning the so-called transition to zero carbon.  They really do want to pave farmland over with solar and wind installations.  The rest of us understand that the whole green economy notion is delusional and needs dismantling ASAP.  The creative destruction of these misbegotten enterprises is a step in the right direction.