NICK POPE
CONTRIBUTOR
The Biden administration announced Monday that it is sending billions of dollars across the country to advance climate change-related projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Monday that it is sending a combined $4.3 billion to help fund 25 applicants build “community-driven” climate projects across 30 states. The projects include electric vehicle (EV) charging station construction, funds to help local governments expedite green energy siting and programs to enhance heat pump adoption. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Demand Answers From Biden Admin On Massive Grants For ‘Environmental Justice’ Program)
“President Biden’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants put local governments in the driver’s seat to develop climate solutions that work for their communities,” John Podesta, the senior advisor to the president for International Climate Policy, said of the funding. “These grants will help state and local governments improve the air quality and health of their communities, while accelerating America’s progress toward our climate goals.”
The Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program was established by the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s massive climate law that passed through Congress without a single GOP vote. The 25 winning applications were selected from a pool of approximately 300 applications in a process “designed to be fair and impartial,” according to the EPA.
Specific projects funded by the money announced Monday include an initiative to ramp up heap pump use in New England and Alaska, industrial decarbonization in Pennsylvania and a multi-state coalition that will look to enhance EV charging infrastructure along the I-95 corridor, according to the EPA.
“President Biden believes in the power of community-driven solutions to fight climate change, protect public health, and grow our economy. Thanks to his leadership, the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program will deliver unprecedented resources to states, local governments, and Tribes to fund the solutions that work best in their communities,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said of the funding.“Selected recipients have put forward ambitious plans to advance sustainable agriculture, deploy clean industrial technologies, cut emissions and energy costs in homes and commercial buildings, and provide cost- and energy-efficient heating and cooling to communities, creating economic and workforce development opportunities along the way.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
I recall Obama threw a lot of money at the IPCC on his way out of the door
Is it a tradition to spend crazy at the end of a presidential term?
PS
Heat pumps in Alaska?
2022
“Thermalize Juneau, has installed heat pumps in nearly 80 homes so far.”
https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/innovative-new-program-brings-heat-pumps-alaskan-homes
2024
We have 164 applicants and at three months after the application closing period, a total of 90 homeowners are looking to install heat pumps.
https://akheatsmart.org/programs/thermalize-juneau/
Is that a lot of people? I read Juneau has a population around 31,500. And…
There are currently 12,922 households in Juneau City and Borough
No, it’s not a lot.
As far as Alaska is concerned, Juneau has mild temperatures with lots of rain. Plus, they don’t mind wasting federal money on things that don’t work, such as EVs.
A pet case?
My borough of London, Wandsworth, had a population of 327,500 in 2022. It’s probably gone up since then with all the boats etc.
I suspect so-
In Washington state, Inslee’s final months aimed at staving off repeal of landmark climate law (msn.com)
Not exactly a vote of confidence in gigglepot but not a lot of volunteers to take up the poison chalice.
It’s more traditional for a President to spend crazy throughout their term. To wit:
At the end of US FY2021 (September 30, 2021), when Joe Biden and his administration became responsible for setting the FY2022 budget, the US national debt stood at $28.4 TRILLION.
According to https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html, the national debt is currently at $35.0 TRILLION. But according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/216998/forecast-of-the-federal-debt-of-the-united-states/ the projected national debt at the end of the last year Biden is responsible for as President, FY2025, the debt will reach a whopping $36.8 TRILLION.
Therefore, Joe Biden and his administration—with the complicity of Congress in failing to control the “purse strings” in order to help themselves to some of that pork—will have been responsible for a massive (36.8-28.4)/28.4 = 0.296, or 30% increase in the country’s debt. That’s an all-time record for a one-term presidency!
THAT is the unspoken, real “legacy” of Joe Biden that so many politicians and MSM talking heads don’t want the public to know about as they spout forth their platitudes.
The interest on the debt is beginning to crowd out other programs, some desirable. One estimate is that interest on the national debt is over 70% of all personal income taxes collected by the government. It is forecast to hit $870 billion this year — exceeding the $822 billion that the nation will spend on defense. The 10-Year Government Bond currently offers a yield of 4.227%.
If everybody (EVERYBODY in the USA, including children, retirees, and illegals) got a second 10/week job, made $12/hr, and donated it to the national debt relief … we could cover that much interest and pay off the debt in 30 years.
If only the taxpayers participated, we could do it in 30 years at the same 12$/hr, but we would need to work an extra 30 hours per week.
If the average income is $50,000/yr, an additional federal debt tax of 13% would need to be enacted just to pay the interest on the debt.
(how many elected federal officials understand what the above really means?).
Obama threw money from the podium almost from day one. It was such a habit that he even did it for Russia during his first encounter with the killers.
“Community Driven” = top-down
Say what? – Only the Green Blob can create such nonsense.
“… ramp up heap pump use in New England and Alaska…”
They don’t work well in very cold weather, right? At what temperature do they not work well?
Do heat pumps work in winter? Experts explain why Nordic countries have installed the most devices
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/10/30/do-heat-pumps-work-in-winter-experts-explain-why-nordic-countries-have-installed-the-most-
OK, I read it- but being a skeptic of everything and everybody, I await skeptics here. I’m sure there’ll be a few. 🙂
If you have well insulated housing and cheap electricity and can do ground source, heat pumps seem to work well.
If you have expensive electricity, UK houses which are neither well sealed (and cannot be since if you try you get damp and mould) nor very well insulated, they do not. Humidity is also an important factor for air source, and the UK is pretty humid. The UK, with its rows of old terraced housing, with a big stock of old housing which needs good ventilation, and poor insulation, is not a great environment. Of course, you are restricted to air source for the urban environment.
Then if you add in the UK high prices for electricity, and the UK plans to move their electricity to wind and solar by 2030 which will both diminish reliable supply and increase prices, its not a sensible idea.
Most accounts you hear of people trying to do it in older housing speak of enormous power bills, because when the air source fails to work, because of low temps, you end up using resistance heating. Which you also have to use for hot water. And then there is the need to replace all the UK radiators with bigger ones, because the rad temp is lower using heat pumps…
No, heat pumps, whatever their merits in Scandinavia, are not a smart choice for most people in the UK, and they are voting accordingly with their wallets.
We have friends in Canada who say the same thing – when the “heat” the pump is pumping is air that is being heated by electrical resistance coils, their electrical bills are through the roof.
Many new houses in the USA have outside walls with 5.5 inches of insulation and internal ducts to distribute warmed (or cooled) air. With low electricity cost they work well. If winters are cold, an alternative source of heat is necessary. I have a wood stove with a catalytic burner. There is more I can say, but the bottom line is heat pumps can be good or bad depending on the circumstances and geography.
If electricity is one’s only option for heating, heat pumps will generally cost less to run than resistive heating. How much time that savings needs to redeem the generally much higher cost of the heat pump is another question.
Supposedly the newest kind can operate down to 25C before it has to switch to resistive heating, thus then using the same or greater quantity of electricity as pure resistive heating. Heat pumps produce mildly warm air, not hot air, so they take more time to warm the house and can only do so as long as the heat loss gradient to the outside is less steep than the heat pump’s heating rate.
“”Do heat pumps work in winter? “”
My gas boiler does. And very well, too.
Ditto for my oil fired boiler.
Your linked article says”…his initial investment may seem costly, at around €2,500 including installation, he thinks it will pay for itself “in just a few years”.”
There is lies the rub. How much to convert?
Not to mention how electricity prices will go up as they continue to push Net Stupid.
“By producing about three to five kWh of thermal energy for every kWh of electricity consumed, heat pumps are instruments for energy efficiency – a key aspect of the fight against climate change – and also allow consumers to make major savings.”
They have solved the world’s energy crisis by eliminating the laws of thermodynamics!!!
The get more Wh output than input. We need to get these to power the grid.
Amazing.
Not to mention the invention of a true perpetual motion machine!
Still trying to figure out how they can pull heat out of cold air without an even colder point to collect the heat.
Heat pumps do deliver more heat output than the power input necessary to run them. And it is not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.
The reason is, they do not generate heat. They transfer it. The units are located outside. They take in outside air, and extract heat from it, then transfer this heat to the inside of the building. The efficiency is a function of how much power it takes to run the extraction and pumping. In favorable circumstances you can indeed get 3-5 kWh of heat for every 1kWh of electricity used to run the system. They work at lower temperatures than a conventional boiler, so you won’t get hot water, and you also need fatter pipes and bigger radiators, and better insulation, and heavy draught proofing. And you need to run them more or less continously – also because of the lower radiator temps.
Well insulated buildings, with ventilation via heat exchangers, with access to ground sources for extracting the heat, and in countries with cheap plentiful electricity, heat pumps will work very well. It depends on the country and the housing stock.
Ground source heat pumps have higher efficiency than air source, which tend to fall quite sharply as the temperature of the air used falls to around or below freezing. Also air source is much less efficient in high humidity environments.
The 3-5 number in the piece is quite correct, with the above qualifications.
The references to ground source are very misleading, without further qualifications.
Tell us what percent of heat pumps include ground source.
Then tell us why you even bring it up.
From comments here, quite a few people with enough property have ground source or deep water well source heat pumps. During the summer, when the heat pump switches to its A/C mode, it delivers the heat it is removing from the house to the ground or well, which is a more efficient cooling operation than expelling it to the air. During the next winter, a fair amount of that heat will be available for heating the house.
I don’t know the percentage. You can look it up yourself, I would start with perplexity.ai. There seem to be about 1,000 such installations a year in the UK. In Scandinavia, particularly Norway, they seem to be an important part of the base. This is what perplexity says on a first glance:
High Adoption Rates: Norway is noted for having one of the highest per capita installations of heat pumps, with a strong preference for ground source heat pumps due to their efficiency in cold climates. The country has seen a substantial increase in heat pump installations, with a 25% rise in sales during the first half of 2023, largely attributed to rising electricity prices and the efficiency of heat pumps in winter conditions
Energy Production: In Norway, the thermal energy extracted from ground source heat pumps is estimated to reach 3 TWh, with expectations of increasing to 8 TWh by 2030. This indicates a growing reliance on ground source systems for heating needs
You want to know why mention ground source at all? Because it exists.
And because the usual quoted efficiency stats give a range, the upper end of which is ground source. And that is technically valid, ground source systems properly installed do indeed deliver at the high end of the range, and work far better than air source in very cold climates.
But, its a mistake to count on this upper end of efficiency being available to air source installations. It is not possible and doesn’t happen.
Ground source is useful in situations where it can be deployed. But those are fairly limited, not urban areas, not apartments, not where there is a high water table (you just produce permafrost). Installations are also a lot more expensive and disruptive than air source. Think 100s of meters of buried pipework.
Mine is (relatively) high ground water, so I am essentially using the water as it moves through. It’s not legal, and I use it only intermittently, as I don’t have any redundant protection wrt to leakage.
I understand they work. But, if I had paid for others to design/install it would not be worth it.
What I don’t understand is why they are included in any discussion of energy transformation on a large scale. They either don’t ‘fit’ or they cost too much (relative to other common energy sources). But if other energy costs do ‘necessarily skyrocket’ then the economic cost/benefit may change as well. I doubt it though.
Most housing in America used a compressor & heat exchanger for the heat pump. Pretty good over a limited temperature range, but when it gets cold, the “emergency heat” (aka resistive heating) kicks in. When it gets too hot, one vents the house by opening the top side of the upper story windows or use ceiling fans or what not.
Construction of most American houses do not want the cost of excavating for what is usually an unneeded augmentation of the HVAC system.
Very few high rise office buildings would be able to do anything like this at all.
I understand that, but the claim was PRODUCED.
I understand the use of a thermal stabilizer, aka heat sink, is part of this.
I first encountered the concept of using the heat capacity of water in what is truly a heat pump. The concept put a swimming pool sized water reservoir under the house. The serpentine piping went through the water. heat was exchanged depending on the temperature of the air versus the temperature of the pool.
Pretty much what the oceans do for the planet.
LOL.
In Ontario mine (in the back room) works fine up to about -10C, with the in floor heating from the gas boiler, below that it is advisable not to use the back room
About 25°F (-4C)
Some winters we’re below that all day and night for weeks at a time. I do see some people with heat pumps in my ‘hood – I’ll have to ask them if they like them. I got a new oil furnace 4 years ago- it should last longer than me, at 74.
I suggest you also ask them what percentage of that time do the electric heating elements run.
My sister was complaining about her electric bill last winter (not enuf wood cut for entire winter so using heat pump, so not really able to compare previous winter bills … probably no big deal).
Then she was complaining about electric bill this spring. (I’ll look at things when I have time…. quit leaving the door open.)
Then in June when using A.C,. (O.K. something funky is going on here)
The heating element control was screwed up and the heating element was always on (fan on – heating element on) … last winter, in the spring, and in June when the A.C. was running.
Sometimes the answer is “always”.
Heat pump use in New England and Alaska….that sounds like part of a joke! Those are probably some of the worst places to make use of heat pumps! I can sort of see them pushing them in the southern US (though I don’t think any tax dollars should go their promotion – if private companies want to push them, fine) but not anywhere where it normally goes below freezing most winter nights. I live in Maryland and every house around here I’ve been in that has a (air source) heat pump has been uncomfortable to me. I keep my heat set at 68 (I have baseboard oil fired heat) and I was in a client’s home (air source heat pump with electric backup) where the heat was set at 74 and I was chilly! The heat produced by both sources is indeed different, not unlike the difference between the sound of vinyl records and CDs or digital media. Some argue there is no difference, but oh, there is! If you can tolerate having a heat pump, fine, but don’t try and push it on those of us who are quite happy with our fossil fuel (or wood fired) heating.
And then there is the price of electricity. If it’s cheap, that’s good. But if not…. people can argue all day about heat pump efficiency but at the end of the day any device that has a running compressor in it will be an energy hog. Whether it’s an AC, an air compressor or whatever, those devices draw a lot of power. It’s just the nature of the beast, so to speak.
With regards to electricity, all I need to run my oil boiler is 110v to operate the oil burner itself and the pumps to circulate the water. Last time there was a power outage in winter I had heat, as I could run my boiler off a portable generator. Try that with a heat pump!
I certainly don’t want one- just asking to learn something- so I can discuss them with anyone stupid enough to want to get one. I have a nice oil furnace and hot water baseboard.
Until your dear commissars cut off the oil.
That would not be healthy for the commissars. 🙂
Heat pump use in New England and Alaska….that sounds like part of a joke! Those are probably some of the worst places to make use of heat pumps!
Air source, yes. Ground source will work quite well, however. But it will cost a bomb to install and need a lot of ground. Or a very deep borehole.
Story Tip
We are seeing a wonderful turn in net zero think. In the first link, the Guardian explains why its necessary to install more gas generation to get to net zero in the UK. Gas is green, after all!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/uk-may-need-new-gas-fired-power-stations-to-decarbonise-grid
In the second link its explained that China is installing huge amounts of wind and solar, and then we find this statement of how its leading the world in the climate struggle:
Somewhat counterintuitively, China has built dozens of coal-fired power stations alongside its renewable energy zones, to maintain the pace of its clean energy transition. China was responsible for 95 per cent of the world’s new coal power construction activity last year. The new plants are partly needed to meet demand for electricity, which has gone up as more energy-hungry sectors of the economy, like transport, are electrified. The coal-fired plants are also being used, like the batteries and pumped hydro, to provide a stable supply of power down the transmission lines from renewable energy zones, balancing out the intermittent solar and wind.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640
Only somewhat counter intuitively?
You have to read a long way down to come to this gem. Who would have thought that installing more coal could be leading the world into the net zero electric nirvana? Now finally we understand why they burn so much coal, and keep on installing coal fired plants. its to save the planet, obviously!
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
— Star Wars: A New Hope
The move to installing more coal and gas generation in order to get to net zero may remind us of a similar move in the area of segregation.
We began with the argument that segregation, separate but equal, was wrong, and that the ideal was color blind integration. This was motivated by the observation that separate usually meant separate but inferior, or non existent. Separation was the important thing, races, as defined by skin color, were incompatible.
So we had the civil rights movement and the sermons of Dr King always arguing for a color blind vision.
Gradually however, and using a different vocabulary to describe what is happening, schools and organizations, in the post civil rights era, are re-implementing segregation for the laudable motive that it enables better services to individuals who are members of the oppressed groups.
The basic idea, that skin color rules, and that people of different skin colors have different approaches to everything and cannot form relationships, that idea re-surfaces in new and improved clothes and is expressed unreflectively by people who would be horrified to have attention called to its roots.
The Cheka re-appears as the KGB, and the SD as the Stasi. The idea that gays were wicked or sick and that punishment was the correct treatment goes on a deep dive, and resurfaces as the idea that same sex attraction shows one is imprisoned in the wrong sex body. Genital mutilation and hormone administration as therapy replaces the former punishments, and of course they are not punishments at all, they are just helpful medical treatments…
The only constant is that the social engineering crazies will always the loudest voices in the room.
From the above article’s fourth paragraph:
“The Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program was established by the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s massive climate law that . . .”
Of course we all know that many blame almost everything nowadays on climate change™, but implying that inflation is caused by climate change™ takes it to a whole new level.
Thanks, Joe . . . NOT.
“Inflation Reduction Act”?
Democrats are expert at calling a spade a fork.
You just realized this?
/s
No. It’s been obvious for decades.
Remember “Welfare”, playing off “To Promote the General Welfare…”
When “The People” (who paid the taxes) began to object, the term “Entitlements” began to appear in it’s place.
PS I did notice the /sarc tag. I just decided to back a few decades for an example. 😎
Yes. All good.
“To Promote the General Welfare…” at that time meant well being.
As in the greatest good for the greatest number – or – the good of the many outweigh the good of the few(or the one – Spock).
Funny how someone can be entitled to something that person did not earn.
When will the globally measured atmospheric level of CO2 start to go down?
I lowered my thermostat in winter, I raised it in summer, I installed solar, I super insulated my house, I switched over to all LED lighting, I bought a hybrid car, I bought all energy efficient appliances. I turned off lights behind me, I bought woolen blankets. The list goes on and on because I love the earth and want to save it.
It’s been very expensive to do all this. I’m in over $100,000 to reduce my carbon footprint so far.
Trillions of dollars have obviously been thrown at fighting climate change for over 40 years now and I’d like to see the efforts start working please.
Sorry about your plight, but haven’t you heard . . . NOTHING that you do, or in fact the whole USA does, will offset the increased CO2 emissions from China and India over the next 20 or more years.
That statement does not imply there is any relationship between reducing atmospheric CO2 levels and “saving the planet”.
It was the hybrid car that did you in
California just announced it is going all in for hydrogen power. CA claims “by 2032” it should be competitive with fossil fuels. The Times article stated massive subsidies will be required to get it started and expect private industries to chip in. Hundreds of Millions of almost bankrupt California money along with hundreds of millions of Federal money to get it started. We should start a pool to guess the date the whole project will be insolvent. I guess it will take two years.
If it is anything like the ‘hi-speed’ train, then,,,never…
One solution to all this would be for the US to institute a flat tax …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Everybody Pays!
A non-solution solution:
— Politically unacceptable . . . hits poor people too hard; makes “the rich” richer
— Financially unacceptable . . . would effectively destroy the capital gains reason for starting new companies, for stock investments, and for buying tax-advantaged state and federal bonds/bills
— Morally unacceptable . . . what are you gonna do with the poor who simply can’t pay the annual flat tax (even if it was, say, only $100)? . . . throw them in jail?
— Practically unacceptable . . . in 2024, you don’t have to file a tax return if your income is below $14,600, and there will be more than 30 million households in the US in that category . . . imagine the extra workload on the IRS if they have to review/process/enforce all those additional tax return filings!
If a person’s (or a business, a charity, a churches) tax return was was the size of a postcard…
The following postcard-size annual tax return has been proposed for universal application across the US:
1) How much did you earn during the year? _____________
2) How much did you spend during the year? _____________
3) Send a check for the amount of Line 1 minus Line 2 (if greater than zero) to the IRS, along with this postcard.
Forget line 2.
“Send a check for (3%?, 5%?) of line 1.”
Well, that’s nothing more than a flat tax, which as I previously posted is unworkable for a variety of reasons.
There should also be no exemptions.
Bad idea.
A presumedly better idea, one worth discussing, is a transition to a national sales tax and the elimination of personal income tax. If you can afford to buy, you can afford to pay taxes. Poverty level would get an exemption card, of course.
How this would apply to corporate taxes is still under consideration, but may use the same math.
Phase it in. Year 1 is 1% sales tax. Raise the income tax floor and reduce tax rates based on the revenues received. Revenues received to to pay off national debt. Year 2 ups it to 2%. Year 3, 3% and so on until the sales tax revenue replaces the income tax.
Eliminate a lot of federal employees, certainly, but with over 10% of all employees in government, maybe that is a good thing.
something to kick around over a beer with your friends. Certainly there are enough people with ideas this can be improved.
A National sales tax should be combined with a National flat tax on income (income meaning including profits, wages and donations to “churches, non-profit organizations, businesses that have dealings in the US.) No exemptions, no exceptions.
Phase it in over, say, 10 years.
A Government entity “buys” something, they pay the sales tax (ear marked to paying down the principle on its debt.)
Perhaps, when those receiving Government “handouts” realize they, themselves, are paying for those handouts…?
(OH! For stock trades? When a stock is traded, the sales tax and the “income” tax will apply.)
Charities will still do well. Most exist because the donors want to do what will help their cause.
Also, “The Rich” will pay more when they buy stuff. Even it if they buy or sell it overseas, same rules. Foreign countries dealing in the US? Same rules.
In stock trades: Sales tax paid by the buyer, income tax paid by the seller.
Phase that in and I really don’t either percentages will need to be that high at the end of the 10 years.
Expect another round of this:
Twelve years ago, the City of Ellensburg, WA [EBRG] used other people’s money (OPM) and installed 5 (of 8 planned) experimental wind machines. One fell over before any useful information or electricity was generated. Further expenses would have had to come from the city budget, so all were quickly dismantled, and the episode was mostly** forgotten. Numerous other places also wasted OPM about that time via grants from some program.
**The concrete pads of the EBRG project can be seen here:
46.991066, -120.570090
Going for the legacy, but history writes the final narrative.
The victors get to rewrite history.
Building power plants? Not so much…
You could get robbed or carjacked at some of the DEI charging stations I’ve seen. Those sites were certainly not picked for safety or marketability.
There’s a big difference between hanging in the ghetto for 5 minutes to refuel and hanging in the ghetto for 4 hours recharging.
EPA should not be in the grant making business. I think EPA should be shut down, it has caused enough problems already. But for god sake if we don’t do anything else take away all grant making funds and powers.
ACORN lives on. Democrat slush funds dispatched.