Syracuse Post Standard Response to View of NY Solar Energy Potential Commentary

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.  On July 16, 2023, a couple of rebuttal letters responded to my commentary: In defense of solar energy development in New York. 

Given that there are limitations on how often I can get letters published I must settle for responses 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, an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030, and 100% “zero emissions” electricity generation 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. 

According to the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) “Gold Book” load and capacity report, in 2022 there were a total of 4,444 MW of solar nameplate capacity (154 MW of utility-scale solar and 4,290 MW of behind-the-meter) on-line in the state.   However, implementation of the Climate Act transition to net-zero will significantly increase that amount by 2030.  By 2030 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) Integration Analysis that provides quantitative estimates of resources for the Scoping Plan projects a total of 18,852 MW and the NYISO 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook projects 14,731 MW.

Rebuttal to Letters to My Commentary

There were two letters published in response to my commentary.  The first by Shelley Conture from

Syracuse and the second by Gary McDermott from Chittenango.  I have attached all the commentaries below for your information.  Conture basically repeated everything Perez said and insinuated that because he has “notable credentials” he must be right.  McDermott addressed the points I made and raised a couple of points that deserve clarification.

Perez claimed the Earth receives more solar energy than the total annual energy consumption of all economies, combined, in a week.  I argued that 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. 

McDermott responded: “No one is claiming solar power will be the only source, but rather a major source of power in the future. We will always use hydropower in New York.”  Both statements are true but both are naïve.  The Integration Analysis projects that by 2035 there will be more installed solar capacity than today’s fossil capacity so the issue is the magnitude of the reliance on solar.  My concern with hydro is that we cannot add significantly more capacity so its advantages are tapped out.

McDermott goes on to address specifics associated with solar abundance.  He states that “The suggestion that winter days are too short for solar fails to recognize that we also have 15-hour long days in the summer, three hours longer than Florida” but ignores the implication that reliability requires electric planners to consider the worst case.  When everything is electrified, the peak load will be in the winter so we must address 9-hour long days.  He says “As far as snow on panels is concerned: It’s simple to brush snow off a 35-degree slope panel, especially since we don’t get as much annual snow.”   Not considering the worst case is problematic here too.  It may not be so simple to brush snow off panels if it is not possible to get to the panels because there is too much snow or ice.  Better would be a requirement that the utility-scale solar installations use tilting-axis panels so that they can be adjusted to minimize snow accumulation, albeit that only works if there is no power outage.  More of a problem is that roof-top distributed systems may not accessible to clear off.  He again ignores the worst case when he states “Also, wind power occurs at night.” Wind lulls can occur at night and then what?

I firmly believe that most people do not understand the ramifications of the Climate Act.  McDermott appears to be knowledgeable but does not understand the Climate Act targets when he says “During low sunshine conditions, natural gas energy can temporarily fill in, but with greater volumes of solar power, our net gas usage would grow much smaller.”  The goal of the Climate Act is no natural gas by 2040.  The practicality of that mandate is the issue.  

I made the point that there is no mandate that solar developments meet the Department of Agriculture and Markets prime farmland protection goal and that projects approved to date have converted 21% of the prime farmland within project areas to unusable land.  I do not disagree with McDermott’s response except that I stand by the prime farmland protections.  Responsible solar siting that includes agrivoltaics is appropriate but not enough.  He states:

In Boulder, Colorado, farmers grow tomatoes, turnips, carrots, squash, beets, lettuce, kale, chard and peppers under 8-foot-high solar panels. I recommend that state laws require solar farm panels to be built this high, to maintain farming. With this reality in mind, the greatest threat to farm land is not solar, but rural housing developments.

McDermott’s other comments do not stand up to scrutiny.  He said that “It’s pointless to complain about new transmission requirements when any new source of electricity will require additional power lines.”  The point is that diffuse renewables require much more transmission and getting offshore wind into the existing grid system is extraordinarily expensive.  I disagree with his statement that “Solar panels last 30 years, whereas combined-cycle gas turbines last only between 25 and 30 years, and produce more pollution.”  The life expectancy of a gas plant is on the order of 40 years and I have never heard a solar developer claim 30 years.  In addition, solar panels degrade 0.8% per year but fossil plants do not degrade.  There are also significant environmental impacts associated with mining the rare earth metals necessary for solar panels.

Both Conture and McDermott claim solar is cheaper.  McDermott says “On average, it costs about $200,000 more per megawatt to build a gas plant than it does a solar farm.”  Conture just repeats what Perez said.  In the limited space I had, I said:

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.

In my post providing background material for the commentary, I expanded on this description.  The claim that “utility-scale solar electricity has become the least expensive form of electricity generation” refers only to power capacity (MW).  Even if solar capacity is half the cost of fossil capacity the cost for delivered energy is much more.  We pay for the kWh electric energy we use each month and we expect it to be available 24-7 throughout the year.  In order to provide usable energy, other things must be considered that destroy the myth that utility-scale solar is cheaper than other types of power plants.  On average a well-designed solar facility can provide (round numbers) 20% of its potential energy possible in New York.  A natural gas fired power plant can operate to produce at least 80% of its potential energy over a year.  In order to produce the same amount of energy, that means that you need four times as much solar capacity.  Even if the solar capacity cost is half the cost for the capacity the energy cost is double simply due to this capacity factor difference. 

But wait, there is more.  In order to make the energy available when needed storage must be added to the cost of the solar capacity.  Also consider that the life expectancy of solar panels is less than the observed life expectancy of fossil-fired power plants.  There are unintended financial consequences that affect the viability of other generators that are needed for reliability that add to ratepayer costs. Because the solar resource is diffuse, it is necessary to support the transmission system to get the solar power to New York City.  There are inherent characteristics of conventional generation that contribute to the stability of the transmission system that are not provided by solar or wind generation.  Someone, somewhere must deploy a replacement resource to provide those ancillary transmission services and that cost should be included the cost comparison. 

Finally, the Integration Analysis, New York Independent System Operator (NYISO, New York State Reliability Council), and the Public Service Commission all agree that another resource that can be dispatched and is emissions-free (DEFR) is needed when the electric grid becomes dependent upon solar and wind resources.  The state’s irrational fear of nuclear generation precludes the only proven resource that meets the necessary criteria so an entirely new resource must be developed, tested, and deployed. 

The Integration Analysis and NYISO 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook both project that the DEFR resource will be comparable in size to existing fossil resources but will operate no more than 9% of the time.  I have yet to see an expected cost for this resource but have no doubts that it will be extraordinarily expensive.  Summing all the costs necessary to make solar power usable for electric energy reliable delivery and there is no doubt that solar is much more expensive.

Conture brings up an issue that McDermott does not address. She says:

With regard to reliability, he discusses the emerging solutions to the concern about solar energy’s intermittency. In his words these solutions, (which he enumerates) “will ensure a continuous power supply which will be available day and night year round without fail.”

Perez discounts the need for and difficulties associated with DEFR technologies that the organizations responsible for electric system reliability all agree are necessary.  The NYISO’s recent reports all emphasize the point that DEFR is not “commercially available” and the PSC Proceeding is devoted to this issue.  I believe that a ensuring a continuous power supply is much more difficult than Perez thinks.

Conclusion

Sadly, readers of the Post Standard will likely remember the last opinions and not mine despite the fallacies of the writers.  Conture appeals to authority and simply repeats what Perez said.  McDermott at least tries to address my points.  Part of his reasoning is that my arguments are invalid because he underestimates the magnitude of the solar resources projected in the Scoping Plan and the Climate Act target that mandates zero emissions by 2040.  My concerns are directly related to the impacts of those considerations. 

Perez subscribes to the academic belief that exiting renewable technologies are sufficient and deployment will result in lower costs.  The fatal flaw in the arguments supporting those points is that they don’t address the worst-case renewable energy droughts that will coincide with future larger peaks in the winter.  The organizations responsible for reliability in New York State all agree that unless nuclear power is deployed that a resource that is not yet commercially available must be developed, tested, and deployed.  I think that is an incredible risk unacknowledged by Perez and the authors of these letters.

I stand by the concluding remark in my commentary. 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.

Caiazza Commentary

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.

Conture Response

I am writing to express my disagreement with a letter in the paper on Sunday, July 2, 2023, “View of NY solar energy potential is far too sunny.” The letter writer refers to the essay, “5 reasons New Yorkers should embrace a solar energy future,” by Richard Perez, Ph.D., published June 12, 2023.

This writer even refers to Perez’s stated goal which is to “clarify common misunderstandings about solar energy and demonstrate its potential to provide an abundant, reliable, affordable environmentally friendly energy future for New York” in a way that suggests that there is something questionable about this goal. I have read Perez’s essay and strongly disagree with these negative implications.

Perez is far more than a concerned citizen expressing his strong opinion. Along with other notable credentials, he heads solar energy research at SUNY Albany’s Atmospheric Sciences Research Center and has served multiple terms on the board of the American Solar Energy Society.

As intended, he covers the topics of the growth of solar technology as well as solar energy’s abundance, affordability, reliability and significantly lower environmental footprint — and he does so very well. He also addresses the concerns about its affordability and reliability in ways that should reassure people who are concerned about these issues.

With regard to reliability, he discusses the emerging solutions to the concern about solar energy’s intermittency. In his words these solutions, (which he enumerates) “will ensure a continuous power supply which will be available day and night year round without fail.”

And with regard to affordability, as with his other responses to common misunderstandings, Perez is careful to back up his statement that, “solar power is now considerably cheaper than new coal, natural gas or nuclear energy.”

What I especially objected to in the July 2 letter is the writer’s calling what Perez suggests “dangerous” and implying that we would do much better by continuing to stay with our conventional sources of electricity. This would, of course, involve the burning of fossil fuels, which is known to be the primary cause of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

I totally understand why people might prefer to do this. It would be more convenient and more familiar. But what I, along with many others, believe is that this is no longer a real choice. Our choice is actually between staying addicted to fossil fuels and believing the misinformation promoting them, or making difficult but ultimately better choices which could halt the continuing destruction of the planet.

Shelley Conture

Syracuse

McDermott Response

In response to Roger Caiazza’s letter on solar power, “View of NY solar energy potential is far too sunny.”

No one is claiming solar power will be the only source, but rather a major source of power in the future. We will always use hydropower in New York. The suggestion that are winter days are too short for solar fails to recognize that we also have 15-hour long days in the summer, three hours longer than Florida. As far as snow on panels is concerned: It’s simple to brush snow off a 35-degree slope panel, especially since we don’t get as much annual snow. During low sunshine conditions, natural gas energy can temporarily fill in, but with greater volumes of solar power, our net gas usage would grow much smaller. Also, wind power occurs at night.

In Boulder, Colorado, farmers grow tomatoes, turnips, carrots, squash, beets, lettuce, kale, chard and peppers under 8-foot-high solar panels. I recommend that state laws require solar farm panels to be built this high, to maintain farming. With this reality in mind, the greatest threat to farm land is not solar, but rural housing developments.

It’s pointless to complain about new transmission requirements when any new source of electricity will require additional power lines. On average, it costs about $200,000 more per megawatt to build a gas plant than it does a solar farm. Solar panels last 30 years, whereas combined-cycle gas turbines last only between 25 and 30 years, and produce more pollution. People pay less for solar electricity.

Gary McDermott

Chittenango