EPA Outlines $27 Billion 'Green Bank' for Clean Energy Projects (apnews.com) 33
The Biden administration has outlined how states and nonprofit groups can apply for $27 billion in funding from a "green bank" that will provide low-cost financing for projects intended to cut planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. From a report: The so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created by Congress in the landmark climate law approved last year, will invest in clean energy projects nationwide, with a focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities. The Environmental Protection Agency expects to award $20 billion in competitive grants to as many 15 nonprofit groups that will work with local banks and other financial institutions to invest in projects that reduce pollution and lower energy costs for families.
Another $7 billion will be awarded to states, tribes and municipalities to deploy a range of solar energy projects, including residential rooftop solar, community solar and solar storage. EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the green bank -- modeled after similar banks established in states such as Connecticut, New York and California -- will unlock billions of dollars in private investment to enable neighborhoods and communities "that have never participated in the clean-energy economy to participate in full force" in creating green jobs.
Another $7 billion will be awarded to states, tribes and municipalities to deploy a range of solar energy projects, including residential rooftop solar, community solar and solar storage. EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the green bank -- modeled after similar banks established in states such as Connecticut, New York and California -- will unlock billions of dollars in private investment to enable neighborhoods and communities "that have never participated in the clean-energy economy to participate in full force" in creating green jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
If I tell the govt. that I "identify" as low income/disantaged person, does that help my chances of qualifying for some of that money?
It seems more and more all you have to do is say "I feel like I'm xyz"...and *poof*, that's what you are.
Perhaps this is the new norm for govt. handouts?
What if you are disadvantaged fluid?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is pretty easy to see them...just watch any given night much of what is broadcast on CNN, MSNBC and TYT.....
The bigger news here (Score:2)
At last, Biden said the words "Elon" and "Tesla".
Fuck GM, Ford and the others legacy car brands for taking the spotlight despite their mediocrity and lack of action.
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck GM, Ford and the others legacy car brands for taking the spotlight despite their mediocrity and lack of action.
Teslas are absolutely mediocre. They are now having battery fires which are not the result of a collision, for example, and their fit and finish (both panel gaps and paint) are still inferior to any other significant automaker. Tesla did take action on EVs, so I don't want to take that away, but the other thing you said isn't warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Issues stemming from Model 3 paint jobs have been widely reported by Tesla owners worldwide [cleanfleetreport.com]. [...] After initially ignoring the complaints, Tesla investigated the issue and laid the blame for paint issues on normal wear and tear that drivers should expect to see when taking their cars out on the road. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been a little bit more honest, saying that such production issues are more prevalent when the company is ramping up car production, as was the case for the Model 3.
Tesla is cheaping out on QA. They are reputed to be using PPG paint, so they're not skimping there, or at least not more than most other automakers (PPG is good, but it's not BASF.)
The panel gap problem [teslamotorsclub.com] is still a real problem, too, and real Tesla owners really know it's a problem.
Tesla doesn't make their batteries (Score:2)
If anything Tesla has retarded EV development by keeping it in the realm of luxury cars. Without Tesla's use of that carbon credit subsidy
Any efficency criteria specified? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably. Seems like a slush fund for Democrat donors and other climate fraudsters. Solyndra only better!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Solyndra 2.0
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how Solyndra did last quarter, then.
Re: (Score:2)
> Exactly. Solyndra 2.0
Good. The DOE program that funded Solyndra ended up making money for the federal government overall, and despite that one high profile defaulted loan, has helped hundreds of other businesses and infrastructure projects get off the ground and we are reaping the benefits of that today.
If the cost is one Solyndra type debacle every now and then, we should increase our spending on similar programs tenfold because it's got an amazing return for the money.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The dirty little secret is most government spending actually ends up as increased domestic economic output, output that actually turns a "profit" against the money spent on the program itself.
The issue is we don't tax that generated output as efficently as we should be.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but in this case, because a portion of the money "spent" was in the form of business loans, those loans were repaid with interest. Actual profit, not "increased tax revenue down the road" profit.
Increased tax revenue as well, of course.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Yes lining the pockets of a few donors is okay as long as the percentage of graft and corruption stays below a certain level. Much better than just letting the private sector handle it by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
> Much better than just letting the private sector handle it by themselves.
This is a very roundabout way of saying you have no fucking clue what the program was or how it worked. Typical.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
ESG 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, goody (Score:2)
Solyndra should apply for another loan.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Guess I have to repost this every few years. Last time was December 2020: ...alas Krugman was not only right about what's below, but about the fact that certain right-wing tropes are "zombies" that keep coming back no matter how many times you kill them. See you all in 2026.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
New York Times, 2014/11/17:
"Here’s another: Remember Solyndra? It was a renewable-energy firm that borrowed money using Department of Energy guarantees, then went bust, costing the Treasur
money in, nothing out (Score:2)
More money for their buddies. In the end, the result will be zero or negative. Still wondering why your taxes and inflation are both high?
27B for Green, and far less for Nuclear (Score:2)
This should be used for geothermal electricity, along with nuclear power plants.
Buffet vs government (Score:2)
Buffet can do whatever he wants to with his money. Its his money. It also took the DOE 3 years to make that Solyndra writeoff back, but that's not counting every other questionable grant they've made, is it.