On July 2, 2023 the Syracuse Post Standard published my letter to the editor Expert’s view of solar energy’s potential in NY is far too sunny that responded to an earlier commentary Five Reasons New Yorkers Should Embrace a Solar Energy Future by Richard Perez, Ph.D. I appreciated the fact that they published my rebuttal but I did find it interesting that the following week that there were three guest opinions that also deserve rebuttals. Given that there are limitations on how often I can get letters published I will have to settle for commentary here.
New York’s response to climate change is the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Climate Act Background
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.
The three commentaries described here all claim that more action is needed because of the climate crisis. All three overestimate the impacts and underestimate the challenges. All three authors have vested interests in their narratives that I believe go beyond environmental concerns. I describe the commentaries below.
Climate Change is Here
The first page of the editorial section of the Sunday Post-Standard led with a guest opinion, Climate change is here in CNY – We can do something about it. The author was Katelyn M. Kriesel who is a socially responsible financial advisor, a town councilor for the town of Manlius, chair of Sustainable Manlius, and candidate for Congress. She opined that the wildfire smoke was an indicator of climate change:
The Canadian wildfires are not normal. More than 11 million acres have burned or are on fire, decimating forests, killing wildlife and threatening homes. This is due to record drought, shifting weather patterns, and a changing climate.
What’s to stop it from happening here? If you think the smoke was bad, wait until we have our own wildfires.
Her arguments that the weather is getting worse around here rely entirely on anecdotal evidence that does not stand up to examination. For example, she ignores similar poor air quality events from wildfires during the Little Ice Age 200 years ago when she claims that the wildfire smoke is due to a changing climate.
She goes on to provide an oversimplified explanation of the greenhouse effect and claims that ignoring the emissions will lead to catastrophe: “As our planet gets warmer, weather patterns change, causing extreme temperatures, droughts and floods. As this continues, climate change worsens.” I have no doubt that she believes that “The only solution is to decrease carbon and methane emissions” and that the personal actions she advocates are necessary.
I also have no doubt that no one could convince her otherwise. Not even Dr. Bjorn Lomborg who was named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. His latest book is entitled “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”. In it he refutes all the points made in this commentary. I recommended his book three years ago and reiterate that recommendation now.
EV Infrastructure
The other article featured on the front page of the Sunday Post-Standard was titled NY’s economic future requires robust, reliable EV infrastructure. Mark Lichtenstein described his belief that electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure is necessary: “If we delay, we risk falling short during this critical time to strengthen our economy, attract a talented workforce, improve our environment, and lead New York’s advance into a clean energy future.” He is executive operating and chief sustainability officer at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, in Syracuse.
He gave EV overview information and argued that recent growth in the EV vehicle registrations portends future success. Notably lacking is that the numbers he presented lacked context. For example, “New York is leading the way — as one of the top five states for EV registrations — with just over 139,100 EVs as of this April” sounds great but not mentioned is that this is less than one half a percent of total registrations.
The point of his commentary was that New York must do more to encourage the transition. He listed “key pieces to the puzzle” that need to be addressed:
- Will our electric generation also be climate-friendly?
- Can our electric distribution infrastructure handle the increase in demand?
- How and where will we charge these new EVs?
- Can we improve the speed and convenience of chargers? and
- Will we effectively address any associated environmental concerns related to the materials needed to construct EVs, as well as the safe disposal of components?
He argued that these issues need to be resolved:
The demand for this enhanced effort is immediate, as Central New York is currently poised for a significant transformation. It must happen now. Consider that Micron is bringing nearly 50,000 jobs and a host of supplier businesses to the region over the next two decades. This requires an infrastructure that can support a massive new amount of electrified passenger vehicles, as well as the medium- and heavy-duty trucks expected to make up an increasingly large share of the EV fleet.
If we delay, we risk falling short during this critical time to strengthen our economy, attract a talented workforce, improve our environment, and lead New York’s advance into a clean energy future.
Personally, I don’t think that the EV transition will strengthen our local economy because the significant costs necessary to support it will divert money away from our economy. No one is claiming that the vehicles, batteries, and charging infrastructure will be constructed here so all that money will go elsewhere. I also doubt that EV infrastructure will be a significant factor for attracting a talented workforce.
Affordable Housing and Climate Crises
There was a third related commentary: Affordable housing & climate crises present opportunity for CNY to lead on page 4. The author of this commentary was Dara Kovel who is CEO of Beacon Communities. That Boston based organization claims to be an industry leader in affordable and mixed-income housing development.
She argued that: “The twin challenges of expanding access to affordable housing and combating climate change present a unique opportunity that New York can’t afford to let slip away.” The commentary was little more than an advertisement for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) Carbon Neutral Portfolio Support program that is “working with real estate owners, developers and manufacturers who are willing to take the lead in designing, building and operating low-carbon and carbon-neutral buildings through its Commercial New Construction Program”.
She argues that this renovation should include existing public housing developments and describes the state program. She explains:
My company, Beacon Communities, an industry leader in affordable and mixed-income housing development in the Northeast and MidAtlantic, is proud to be the first developer in New York to participate in this program.
Supported by up to $250,000 in state funding, we’re working with Syracuse-based Northeast Green Building Consulting and Ithaca’s Taitem Engineering to review our entire 2.5 million-square-foot New York housing portfolio and design a blueprint to make all existing buildings as clean and resilient as possible while meeting clean energy requirements in new projects.
She concludes:
This is an exciting and critical time for the state and specifically for Central New York. We’re at a tipping point when it comes to both housing needs and climate change, and we should use every tool at our disposal to build the new, green communities of the future. We can’t afford to waste this moment — or this opportunity — to make positive change.
Discussion
I think all three commentaries deserve rebuttals but they don’t deserve much time. As I noted Kriesel’s characterization of the climate change issue was simplistic and shallow. Her belief that individuals can make a difference is rebutted by Lomborg. Lichtenstein claims that readers of the paper should be motivated to support EV infrastructure because it will support the Micron semi-conductor plant proposal. I find that a stretch. Moreover, he did not really address the costs to implement the infrastructure required. Kovel argued that expanding access to affordable housing is important and gloms on to New York’s Climate Act building electrification efforts as a rationale.
Cynic that I am, I note that all three authors have biases in their backgrounds that I think drive their opinions. Kriesel is a politician and is catering to a particular constituency when she repeats the climate crisis narrative. The only thing missing was a promise to pass legislation if elected. Mark Lichtenstein is a professional environmentalist. His entire career has been devoted to sustainability. In addition to his role as the executive operating and chief sustainability officer at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry he is “the founder and principal of Embrace Impatience Associates, and the principal of Lichtenstein Consulting, providing training and consultation on board development, circular economy, communications, conflict management, environmental finance, facilitation, leadership, negotiation, recycling, resiliency, and sustainability.” Kovel is CEO of Beacon Communities a real-estate developer that is using state money to re-develop its holdings under the guise of disadvantaged community support. It is entirely appropriate to upgrade affordable housing but I worry that the administrative costs of a Boston-based developer will reduce the amount of money spent on the housing needs.
Conclusion
I was encouraged that I got the opportunity to present my explanation why I believe the ambitions for solar technology will do more harm than good to the readers of the Syracuse Post-Standard. On the other hand, it was frustrating to read three flawed commentaries the following week. Because there are restrictions on frequency of guest opinions I could not comment on those flaws. All three have inherent flaws. Moreover, the biased opinions of a naïve politician, a professional environmentalist whose career depends on a crisis, and a rent-seeking crony capitalist are evident with a bit of research but I doubt that many readers will take the time.
Expert’s view of solar energy’s potential in NY is far too sunny
I have not published my commentary. It was based on the post Five Reasons New Yorkers Should Not Embrace a Solar Energy Future and is included here for your information.
The June 12, 2023, commentary “Five reasons New Yorkers should embrace a solar energy future” by Richard Perez, Ph.D., claims to “clarify common misunderstandings about solar energy and demonstrate its potential to provide an abundant, reliable, affordable and environmentally friendly energy future for New York.” I disagree with his reasons.
Perez claim the Earth receives more solar energy than the total annual energy consumption of all economies, combined, in a week but ignores that availability when and where needed is a critical requirement. In New York, the winter solar resource is poor because the days are short, the irradiance is low because the sun is low in the sky, and clouds and snow-covered panels contribute to low solar resource availability.
“Solar technology is improving” is another claimed reason but solar energy in New York is limited because of the latitude and weather so there are limits to the value of technological improvements. If it is so good, then why does deployment rely on direct subsidies?
While solar energy may not have environmental impacts in New York, that does not mean that there are no impacts. Instead. they are moved elsewhere, likely where environmental constraints and social justice concerns are not as strict. The rare earth metals necessary for solar, wind and battery technology require massive amount of mining and the disposal of all the solar panels are significant unconsidered environmental issues.
Perez dismisses land use issues because “a 100% renewable PV/wind future for New York would require less than 1% of the state’s total area.” There is no mandate that solar developments meet the Department of Agriculture and Markets prime farmland protection goal. Projects approved to date have converted 21% of the prime farmland within project areas to unusable land. There is no requirement for utility-scale solar projects to use tracking solar panels, so more panels are required than originally estimated.
Perez claims that “utility-scale solar electricity has become the least expensive form of electricity generation” but that only refers power capacity (MW). When you consider the relative amount of energy that can be produced annually, the storage needed to provide energy when the sun isn’t shining, the shorter life expectancy of PV panels, transmission support service requirements and the need for a new dispatchable, emissions-free resource, then the cost of solar energy provided when and where needed is much higher than conventional sources of electricity.
The suggestion that a system depending on solar energy will be more dependable than the existing system would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. The reliability of the existing electric system has evolved over decades using dispatchable resources with inherent qualities that support the transmission of electric energy. The net-zero electric system will depend upon wind and solar resources hoping they will be available when needed, additional resources to support transmission requirements, and a new resource that is not commercially available. This is a recipe for disaster because if the resource adequacy planning does not correctly estimate the worst-case period of abnormally low wind and solar energy availability then the energy needed to keep the lights on and homes heated will not be available when needed most. People will freeze to death in the dark.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 