Ivanpah Solar Plant: The Flaming Failure That’s Finally Being Put Out of Our Misery

It’s finally happening. The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, the behemoth of bureaucratic blundering and incinerated wildlife, is circling the drain. Once celebrated as a game-changer for renewable energy, it’s now being quietly escorted off the stage with a “nothing to see here, folks” attitude. After just 11 years of struggling to justify its own existence, Ivanpah is headed for closure. Good riddance​.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

It’s finally happening. The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, the behemoth of bureaucratic blundering and incinerated wildlife, is circling the drain. Once celebrated as a game-changer for renewable energy, it’s now being quietly escorted off the stage with a “nothing to see here, folks” attitude. After just 11 years of struggling to justify its own existence, Ivanpah is headed for closure. Good riddance​.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — What was once the world’s largest solar power plant of its type appears headed for closure just 11 years after opening, under pressure from cheaper green energy sources. Meanwhile, environmentalists continue to blame the Mojave Desert plant for killing thousands of birds and tortoises.

https://apnews.com/article/california-solar-energy-ivanpah-birds-tortoises-mojave-6d91c36a1ff608861d5620e715e1141c

The Big, Hot, Shiny Disaster

Ivanpah opened in 2014, with all the usual pomp and circumstance, hailed as a “breakthrough moment for clean energy.” It sprawled over five square miles of federal land in the Mojave Desert, a shiny testament to the boundless hubris of central planners who thought they could beat the free market with subsidies and a prayer​.

The concept was dazzling—350,000 computer-controlled mirrors would reflect sunlight onto boilers atop three massive towers, creating steam to turn turbines. It was supposed to be a triumph of innovation. Instead, it became a cautionary tale about what happens when green energy dreams collide with reality​.

Reality Strikes Back

The plant has faced problems from the very start. First, it never produced as much electricity as promised. The reason? The sun didn’t shine as much as expected. Yes, you read that correctly. Somehow, the geniuses behind this project failed to account for… clouds​.

 Another unexpected problem: not enough sun. Weather predictions for the area underestimated the amount of cloud cover that has blanketed Ivanpah since it went into service in 2013.

https://ca.audubon.org/news/ivanpah-fails-deliver-energy-promise

Then there was the minor issue of mass wildlife casualties. Conservationists tried to warn the bright-eyed eco-planners that plopping a giant death ray in the middle of the Mojave might not be the best idea. But they were dismissed—until reports started rolling in of birds bursting into flames mid-flight as they passed through the intense reflected sunlight. The phenomenon was dubbed “streamers” because, well, that’s what happens when a bird spontaneously combusts​.

A new study by consultants hired by the Ivanpah Solar Facility in the Mojave Desert estimate that the plant killed somewhere between 2,500 and 6,700 birds in its first year. Their best guess is the actual number is around 3,500. The facility got a lot of attention from bird conservationists when observers reported seeing birds actually catch on fire in middair near the intense heat generated by the facility.

https://ca.audubon.org/node/22586

And let’s not forget the desert tortoises, another unintended casualty. Environmentalists initially fought the plant’s construction, arguing it would destroy pristine habitat. They were right. But instead of admitting defeat, the Sierra Club and others spun this disaster as a “learning experience” about how not all renewable energy projects are created equal​.

The Inevitable Economic Collapse

Even if Ivanpah hadn’t been a wildlife crematorium, it still couldn’t make the numbers work. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which had agreed to buy power from Ivanpah, has decided to cut its losses. The utility company announced it will terminate its contracts with the plant, stating that keeping them would be a waste of money. In corporate-speak: “PG&E determined that ending the agreements at this time will save customers money”​.

Southern California Edison, which buys the remaining power, is also looking for an escape route. When even California utilities, which have bent over backward to subsidize and mandate renewable energy, decide you’re a lost cause, you know the end is near​.

What Now?

The plan is to start shutting down Ivanpah’s operations by 2026, though the original contracts were supposed to last until 2039. That means we get to clean up this mess a full 13 years earlier than expected. The owners, including NRG Energy, are now talking about possibly repurposing the site for photovoltaic solar panels instead. Because that technology, unlike Ivanpah’s glorified magnifying glass, kinda sorta works​, sometimes… well better than Ivanpah at least, leading to this awesome quote:

NRG said in a statement that the project was successful, but unable to compete with rival photovoltaic solar technology — such as rooftop panels — which have much lower capital and operating costs.

https://apnews.com/article/california-solar-energy-ivanpah-birds-tortoises-mojave-6d91c36a1ff608861d5620e715e1141c

But the question remains: Who’s going to pay for this transition? The same taxpayers who funded this failed experiment in the first place? That part hasn’t been answered, but if history is any guide, the bill will find its way to the public. Socal Edison is begging the Department of Energy to buy them out. The same DoE that wasted money funding this boondoggle in the first place.

Lessons from the Wreckage

Ivanpah is a shining (literally) example of what happens when ideology replaces sound economic and engineering principles. It was never about producing reliable, cost-effective energy. It was about making a grand, symbolic gesture in the fight against climate change. And as with most grand, symbolic gestures, reality eventually caught up.

So let’s all take a moment to bid farewell to Ivanpah, the multimillion-dollar death trap that killed birds, displaced tortoises, and wasted billions—all for an energy source that couldn’t even compete with rooftop solar.

Goodbye, Ivanpah. You won’t be missed.

H/T Clyde Spencer, doonman, Resouceguy, Yirgach

Citigroup: “Trump Can’t Stop Energy Transition”!

Citigroup still has ESG analysts? That is so 2021. That said, they are correct. President Trump can’t stop something that isn’t happening. To the extent a “transition” is occurring, it’s from coal to natural gas. This is not really a transition. Both are carbon-based fossil fuels, with high energy densities; It’s more of an energy clean-up, rather than a transition.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “They’re right, but for the wrong reason” by David Middleton

OilPrice.com

Citigroup still has ESG analysts? That is so 2021. That said, they are correct. President Trump can’t stop something that isn’t happening. To the extent a “transition” is occurring, it’s from coal to natural gas. This is not really a transition. Both are carbon-based fossil fuels, with high energy densities; It’s more of an energy clean-up, rather than a transition.

US EIA

While coal may have surpassed renewables (wood) in the late 1800’s, we never transitioned away from consuming wood for energy.

US EIA

In 1949, there was no nuclear power generation and renewables were pretty well limited to hydroelectric and wood. From 1949 through 2023 US total energy production more than tripled. To the extent fossil fuels were displaced, it was mostly by nuclear power. Despite $gazillions of subsidies, the renewables share barely budged from 6% to 8%.

YearFossil FuelsNuclearRenewablesEnergy Production (quads)
194994%0%6%30.61
202384%8%8%102.78

This bit is hilarious:

The energy transition has progressed and is now more advanced compared to when President Trump entered the White House for the first time in 2017, according to the analysts.

OilPrice.com

Really?

US EIA

I’m not an ESG analyst, but I did minor in math back in the Pleistocene:

YearFossil FuelsNuclearRenewablesEnergy Production (quads)
201781%10%9%84.36
202384%8%8%102.78

The growth in US energy production since 2017 has been almost entirely driven by crude oil and natural gas.

Energy Transition…

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/445662

Fossil Fuels…

Life Expectancy: Our World in Data, Energy Consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, 2020

AEP’s Latest Renewable Fantasy

If green energy is the future, as he claims, then obviously there is no need for renewable subsidies, mandates, bans or all of the other laws and regulations being applied to enforce Net Zero

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is off on one of his rants against fossil fuels yet again.

In his latest Telegraph article, “Right-wing wokeism can’t stop green tech winning the global energy war”, he reprises exactly the same arguments he has been using for years:

  • CAPEX is pouring into renewables, because they are profitable
  • Renewable energy is cheaper
  • Solar power is going to take over the world
  • Battery storage is coming down in price
  • The world is being weaned off fossil fuels
  • China is leading the way on renewables

If green energy is the future, as he claims, then obviously there is no need for renewable subsidies, mandates, bans or all of the other laws and regulations being applied to enforce Net Zero

And simply comparing unit costs of solar power with fossil fuels is not something any competent economist would do. As we know, that does not address the indirect costs associated with wind and solar power.

That is why even DESNZ admit that the UK will need to maintain a full working fleet of gas power stations at immense cost, for use when the wind does not blow.

AEP also still does not seem to understand that solar power in the UK and other northern latitude countries is virtually worthless in winter. It would cost trillions to provide battery storage to store enough electricity to cover for this. That leaves us with wind power, which is also highly intermittent and costs more than gas power.

The world is not galloping towards a green future, as AEP imagines, wind and solar still only accounted for a paltry 6% of the world’s energy in 2023:

BP Energy Review

He uses the example of Pakistan, which he pretends is moving fast to solar power. It is not – solar energy only made up 0.3% of the mix in 2023, while fossil fuels contributed 81.9%:

BP Energy Review

As for China leading the world on renewables, suffice it to say wind and solar only accounted for 8.0% of their energy in 2023, well below the UK figure of 12.9%.

He still does not get the fact that the world cannot run on intermittent renewable alone, no matter how cheap they might appear on future. The rest of the world worked this out a long time ago. It is only dinosaurs like AEP and Miliband who are still living in the world of twenty years ago, when Big Government thought it could dictate how the world ran.

I have great difficulty understanding why the Telegraph keep paying for AEP to write this drivel week after week.

Heartland Institute in the UK/EU: Guilty as Charged! (DeSmog backfire)

Great news! As reported by DeSmog, James Taylor and the Heartland Institute are off to a resounding start with their new offices in the UK/EU. What a return on investment for donors–and reason to attract more philanthropy to help consumers, taxpayers, and a greener environment.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Heartland’s immediate success in the UK/EU reflects a ready opportunity to dial back climate exaggeration and undo forced energy transformation…. Call it “social justice,” a movement that DeSmog continues to promote (unintendedly) through its truth bombs.”

Great news! As reported by DeSmog, James Taylor and the Heartland Institute are off to a resounding start with their new offices in the UK/EU. What a return on investment for donors–and reason to attract more philanthropy to help consumers, taxpayers, and a greener environment.

As DeSmog previously reported, Heartland last December announced that the new branch would provide “resources to conservative policymakers throughout Europe.” And the early results are in, detailed by Sam Bright and Clare Carlile in “U.S. Climate Denial Group Using Far-Right to Attack EU Green Policies” (January 22, 2025). Excerpts follow:

The pro-Trump Heartland Institute claims it spearheaded opposition to a flagship European nature law.

In a post on its website published on 10 January, the Heartland Institute claimed that it helped to encourage Hungarian lawmakers to withdraw their support for the legislation in March. The Nature Restoration Law, which eventually passed in June, sets targets for restoring degraded ecosystems, habitats, and species across the EU.

The Heartland Institute claims that it was assisted by Austrian Members of European Parliament (MEPs) Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider, who represent the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and have forged close ties with the institute in recent years. 

Results!

Following several meetings between Vilimsky, Haider, and Heartland Institute president James Taylor, the latter was invited in March to speak in the European Parliament. 

“During the session, Taylor explained why there is no climate crisis according to the best available data, and he warned of the economic, political, and geopolitical suicide that net zero would bring,” the Heartland blog post states. “After the session, Taylor met informally with many of the Hungarian MEPs, continuing the conversation over dinner.”

Csaba Molnar, an MEP for the Hungarian Democratic Coalition, told DeSmog it is “more than plausible” that Hungary withdrew its support for the Nature Restoration Law due to the influence of the Heartland Institute. 

Continuing:

Vilimsky and Haider are vocal opponents of EU climate policies – known as the Green Deal – and have called into question long-established climate science. Vilimsky has called the EU Green Deal “eco totalitarianism” and has claimed its supporters are the “eco Taliban,” while Haider has called the climate crisis “conceited bullshit” ….

The full article should be read. The bad guys and gals do not like Heartland.

Final Comment

Heartland’s project to export intellectual advocacy is still in early days, but its immediate success in the UK/EU reflects a ready opportunity to dial back climate exaggeration and reject forced energy transformation. The elitist Climate Industrial Complex is out of excuses for wasting resources in a false cause. Call it “social justice,” a movement that DeSmog continues to promote (unintendedly) through its truth bombs.

The Cato Institute has a Friedman Prize every other year for the international figure that has done most to advance liberty. With results like this, the responsible figure(s) of the Heartland Institute should be a candidate for the award for their US/UK/EU work on energy and climate.

Heat Pump Installations Less Than 60,000 Last Year

Last year, according to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme, installations were less than 60,000, despite increased government subsidies of £7500.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The heat pump rollout lurches from one disaster to another.

Last year, according to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme, installations were less than 60,000, despite increased government subsidies of £7500.

The total number of installations in the UK is now 275,000, just one percent of UK households.

Meanwhile government statistics show that heat pump installations covered under the public subsidy regime are running at around 10,000 per quarter.

Although the ban on fossil fuel boilers in new builds this year will increase increase installations, this will have no effect on the 27 million existing houses.

At the current rate, 26.4 million will still not have heat pumps by 2035.

Legal Appeal: Climate Clowns “did what they did out of sacrifice”

“… they argued judges defied decades of precedent by ignoring their conscientious motives. …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… they argued judges defied decades of precedent by ignoring their conscientious motives. …”

Climate activists ‘did what they did out of sacrifice’, appeal court told

Lawyers invoke philosophies of Hannah Arendt and Henry David Thoreau in bid to have long sentences of 16 protesters quashed

Damien Gayle
Thu 30 Jan 2025 05.02 AEDT

The philosophies of Hannah Arendt and Henry David Thoreau were aired in the court of appeal on Wednesday as 16 climate activists sought to convince England’s most-senior judge to quash their long sentences for disruptive acts of civil disobedience.

…

The appellants, prosecuted in four separate trials last year, appeared at a mass appeal in London before a panel led by Lady Justice Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, where they argued judges defied decades of precedent by ignoring their conscientious motives.

They had received sentences ranging from 15 months to five years after taking part in various protests in 2022 as part of the Just Stop Oil climate campaign, which called for a moratorium on oil exploration in the North Sea.

…

Among the 16 was Roger Hallam, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, whose five-year sentence for planning roadblock protests on the M25 is thought to be longest ever handed out in the UK for non-violent protest; Larch Maxey, sentenced to three years for tunnelling beneath the road leading to an Essex oil refinery; and Phoebe Plummer, imprisoned for two years for throwing tomato soup on the glass covering Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting at the National Gallery.

…

“They are the only known examples of punishment of peaceful protesters in which no reduction at all was made for such motivation,” said documents filed with the court by the applicants.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jan/29/hannah-arendt-and-henry-david-thoreau-invoked-in-court-by-climate-protesters

In my opinion the protestors actions went well beyond any reasonable definition of acceptable protest. By forcibly inflicting their deranged extremism on others, the protestors caused outrage and distress, incited violence from people desperate to get home to their kids or to their jobs, and likely cost lives by blocking roads used by emergency services.

Let’s hope whatever decision the courts make in this case, that court decision discourages further disruption.

MEDIA ADVISORY: Offshore wind projects imperiled by Trump’s executive orders

A group of public interest groups trying to save endangered whales and other marine life in the Atlantic Ocean from the harms of massive wind projects predict that President Trump’s current and future executive orders could imperil many projects already underway.

From CFACT

Media interviews for Craig Rucker can be arranged by contacting Judy Kent at JKent@cfact.org.

–

WASHINGTON, DC (January 30, 2025) – A group of public interest groups trying to save endangered whales and other marine life in the Atlantic Ocean from the harms of massive wind projects predict that President Trump’s current and future executive orders could imperil many projects already underway.

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the Heartland Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) today responded to claims by the offshore wind industry that the numerous federal orders recently issued by the Trump administration would have little impact on the viability of wind projects off the U.S. East Coast.

On January 20, 2025, the day of his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order which canceled Lava Ridge, a large wind energy project in Idaho, and also called for government officials to conduct a study to determine the “viability” of East Coast offshore wind projects. The study will determine if the offshore wind projects should be “amended or terminated.” The study’s recommendations will be sent to President Trump and his Assistant for Economic Policy, Stephen Miller, at a later date.

Proponents of the offshore wind projects, such as Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, have claimed that Trump’s executive order will have no effect on the construction and operation of the offshore wind project recently announced for the federal waters off the coast of Maryland.

Last year, CFACT, The Heartland Institute, and NLPC sued the Biden administration to halt construction of the offshore wind project being built in Virginia by Dominion Energy citing harm done to the endangered North Atlantic right whale. That case is pending in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The following comments may be used for attribution. For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Jim Lakely, vice president of The Heartland Institute, at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.

“Maryland’s governor is jumping to conclusions that Trump’s executive order doesn’t impact his state’s offshore wind factory. Even if they have federal permits for the time being, some of these will require reauthorization and others may be needed to operate during and after construction. Forging ahead and building Maryland’s wind project at this point is an incredible financial risk, especially if a reassessment of the project’s impact on whales and other marine life uncovers significant potential harm. Maryland taxpayers will be on the hook for any premature construction cost.”

Craig Rucker

President

CFACT

crucker@cfact.org

“President Trump should be taken at his word when he pledged that he does not want a single windmill to be built during his second term. The delays will add costs to the projects and combined with the revised studies required by the executive order, which suggest that some of these wind projects may be ‘terminated.’ could have severe consequences for future offshore wind construction. For the sake of the reliability of the electrical grid, energy’s cost to ratepayers, the fishing and tourism industries, and endangered and protected marine mammals, one can only hope President Trump’s efforts to stop these industrial monstrosities are successful. Only time will tell.”

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.

Director

Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy

The Heartland Institute

hsburnett@heartland.org

“Offshore wind developers are clearly whistling past the graveyard when they claim the Trump administration will have no effect on their construction plans. There will be new leadership at highest levels of the federal government who have publicly stated their dim view of the economics and environmental impact of offshore wind.”

Paul Kamenar

Counsel

National Legal Policy Center (NLCP)

drene@nlpc.org

In 1985, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded to promote a much-needed, positive alternative voice on issues of environment and development. Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, strongly believed the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s most pressing concerns. A number of leading scientists, academics, and policy leaders soon joined them, along with thousands of citizens from around the U.S. and around the world.

Today, CFACT is a respected Washington D.C.-based organization whose voice can be heard relentlessly infusing the public-interest debate with a balanced perspective on environmental stewardship and oth er important issues.  With an influential and impressive scientific advisory board, effective collegiate program on U.S. college campuses, CFACT Europe, official United Nations’ NGO representation, Adopt-A-Village project, Global Social Responsibility program, and “Just the Facts” daily national radio commentary, CFACT continues to offer genuine solutions to today’s most important global challenges.

CFACT has been termed “invaluable” by the Arizona Republic, it has been lauded for its “effort to bring sound science to the environmental debate” by a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and has been praised by a respected Boston Herald columnist for “a record of supplying absolutely solid information.”

-###-

Fake News, CNN and UN, Climate Change Is Not Disrupting Latin America’s Food Production

A recent CNN story claims that climate change has caused recent disruptions in food production across the Caribbean and South America. This is false. Although in Latin America as elsewhere farm production varies from year to year and weather in 2023 did bring hardship to some farmers in some countries, since 1990 overall crop production in the region has regularly set records.

From ClimateRealism

By H. Sterling Burnett

A recent CNN story claims that climate change has caused recent disruptions in food production across the Caribbean and South America. This is false. Although in Latin America as elsewhere farm production varies from year to year and weather in 2023 did bring hardship to some farmers in some countries, since 1990 overall crop production in the region has regularly set records. Despite being a period during which the Earth warmed modestly, improving supplies of major crops resulted in a decline in hunger. With no sustained decrease in production and no long-term trend, it is simply false to claim climate change is harming food production in Latin America.

The CNN story, “Climate change is disrupting food systems across Latin America, UN report says,” cites a recent U.N. report, “Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2024,” to claim:

Violent weather exacerbated by climate change fueled hunger and food insecurity across Latin America and the Caribbean in 2023, according to a new United Nations report.

Extreme weather drove up crop prices in multiple countries in the region in 2023, the report, which was written by several UN agencies including the World Food Program (WFP), says.

To begin, extreme weather affecting crop prices in 2023, or in any other year, is not unusual, ask any farmer. Extreme weather is not unusual across Latin America or elsewhere. Every year, extreme weather strikes somewhere at some time. When it does, it can hamper planting, tending, harvesting, and/or transporting crops, complicating getting crops from field to market. As my colleague award winning meteorologist Anthony Watts and I have discussed at Climate Realism many times previously, here, here, and here, for example, the World Meteorological Organization is clear that weather is not climate. Only long-term weather trends can signify a change in climate, and there has been no sustained, multi-decade or even multi-year trend of more frequent or more severe weather events across the Caribbean or South American.

While there is no evidence climate change impacted Latin American agriculture in 2023, El Niño, a natural large scale oceanic shift, almost certainly did drive multiple severe weather events across the region. El Niño results in shifting weather patterns, like excessive rainfall in some areas, causing flooding, and less rainfall in others, causing drought. It can also impact the formation of hurricanes, their strength, and where they are likely to strike, and contribute to conditions favorable or disfavor able to wildfires. There is no evidence at all that climate change is affecting El Niño/La Niña oceanic shifts.

The strongest evidence rebutting claims that climate change is “disrupting food systems across Latin America,” as CNN asserts, comes directly from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which assembles data on food production. FAO data show that between 1990 and 2025, the most important crops grown in the Caribbean, and in Central and South America, cereal crops (maize, rice, wheat, oats, barley, rye, etc.) and tubers and roots (potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, manioc (cassava), carrots, beats, etc.) have all set records for production repeatedly over the period.

  • Cereal grain production grew approximately 44 percent across Central America, 18 percent in the Caribbean, and 275 percent across South America;
  • Tuber and root production expanded by about 91 percent in Central America, 52 percent across the Caribbean, and by 6 percent in South America. (See the figure below)

Facts are facts and while CNN and the U.N. may try to spin a single year’s food disruption for some farmers in some countries into evidence of a regionwide climate crisis, the data tells a different story. Amid ongoing modest warming, while some farmers, in some countries, in some years, have down years, and transportation may be made difficult due to storms, overall, in Latin America food production is increasing. Farmers and agricultural areas across the region are doing well. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that climate change is disrupting the food supply or causing hunger or malnutrition in Latin America.

Blackout Britain threat rises on collapse of Norwegian government

Britain’s increasingly dangerous reliance on imported electricity has just gone up another notch with the collapse of Norway’s Government.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 Blackout Britain threat rises on collapse of Norwegian government

Britain’s increasingly dangerous reliance on imported electricity has just gone up another notch with the collapse of Norway’s Government.

The Telegraph reports:

Britain risks being left more vulnerable to blackouts as a political row in Norway over power exports escalates.

The Norwegian government collapsed this week following a row over EU green energy laws. A junior coalition partner in the government quit in protest at plans to implement the policies, amid a broader rise in energy nationalism in the country.

Experts said the collapse raised questions over Britain’s reliance on Norwegian energy imports to keep the lights on. Last weekend, Norway accounted for 4pc of the UK’s power, coming via cables that run under the North Sea.

Kathryn Porter, an energy consultant at Watt-Logic, said there was “increasing pressure” on Oslo to re-evaluate its relationship with the UK on electricity.

Before the Norwegian coalition’s collapse, both governing parties had signalled they wanted to end a deal to supply Denmark with electricity and renegotiate deals with the UK and Germany.

Norway is a key source of electricity for Britain when the nation’s own power supplies dip. Norway generates energy from its hydroelectric power facilities, which offer a stable source of electricity in contrast to intermittent solar and wind.

A backlash over high energy prices in the country has increased pressure to cut electricity links into Europe. The country is set to go to the polls in September, with the issue expected to be front and centre of debates.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/blackout-britain-threat-rises-collapse-140740933.html

The 1400 MW North Sea Link is currently running flat out.

The issue is a very simple one, as far as Norway’s voters are concerned.

When electricity is in short supply in Germany, Denmark or Britain, demand for Norway’s power rises, pushing up prices for Norway’s consumers as a result.

It is unlikely that Norway would simply switch the interconnector off, but we may have to pay a lot more for it.

Trump Admin Moves to Toss Out Biden’s Fuel Economy Rules

Newly confirmed Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy is already moving to overturn the Biden-Harris administration’s stringent fuel economy standards for vehicles.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Ireland Owens
Contributor

Newly confirmed Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy is already moving to overturn the Biden-Harris administration’s stringent fuel economy standards for vehicles.

Shortly after Duffy was sworn in as transportation secretary on Tuesday, he signed a memorandum to begin the process of resetting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. As a result of regulatory costs, the CAFE standards have “diminished the strength of America’s auto industry” and “denied Americans the full range of affordable vehicles they need,” according to a DOT press release.

CAFE standards were first enacted by Congress in 1975 to regulate the fuel economy of vehicles. The NHTSA most recently strengthened the standards under former President Joe Biden in June 2024, requiring manufacturers to increase fuel economy by 2% each year for new passenger vehicles from 2027 to 2031 and for new light trucks from 2029 to 2031. 

The updates to CAFE standards under Biden were widely criticized for potentially saddling carmakers with billions in compliance costs which would have resulted in higher prices for consumers.

The Biden-Harris administration led a push for Americans to adopt electric vehicles (EVs) as part of the former president’s signature green energy agenda, which also included stringent tailpipe emissions standards introduced in March 2024. Biden’s administration also shelled out billions to build a network of half a million EV chargers nationwide by 2030, but as of April 2024, just 38 were operational. (RELATED: Soil Near Massive California Battery Fire Found Loaded With ‘Toxic’ Metals As Residents Report Headaches, Itchy Eyes)

“I am deeply honored by the trust placed in me by President Trump to lead this important Department and for the Senate in swiftly confirming my nomination,” Duffy wrote in the press release. “We are already hard at work executing the President’s vision to usher in a golden age of transportation by taking immediate action to remove government overreach and lower costs for hardworking Americans. The memorandum signed today specifically reduces the burdensome and overly restrictive fuel standards that have needlessly driven up the cost of a car in order to push a radical Green New Deal agenda. The American people should not be forced to sacrifice choice and affordability when purchasing a new car.”

President Donald Trump has been an outspoken critic of Biden’s EV policies. Trump vowed to repeal Biden’s de facto electric vehicle mandate while on the campaign trail, calling the measures “insane.” Just hours after returning to office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order that aims to unleash “America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources,” which he said will “restore American prosperity.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

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.