On June 24, 2023 the Finger Lakes Times published a commentary, Alternate Energy: Scoping it out, Part VI: My humble opinion, conclusion by Jim Bobreski, a process control engineer from Penn Yan. The commentary concludes a series on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Scoping Plan. I started this post soon after his article was published but just got around to completing it. While I admire Bobreski’s efforts to try to decipher the Scoping Plan he makes a couple of mistakes that should be addressed.
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.
Author Background
According to the article: Jim Bobreski of Penn Yan is a process control engineer in power production for 43 years. He writes a monthly OpEd on Alternate Energy for the Finger Lakes Times and is the author of “Alternate Energy and Climate Change in the Age of Trump,” available Amazon.com. The Barnes and Noble overview of the book says:
In the age of Trump, energy, is as big and important an issue as it ever has been. The decisions we make as nations, and as individuals about energy are as important as always to our present, and more so to our future. However, in this age of Trump, there are delusions and confusion that he and his regime has perpetrated. Trump has succeeded in creating so much doubt that the average person thinks that up is down and down is up. He has turned science upside down as well. His interference with science has so obstructed the truth that Scientific American came out to for the first time in its 175 year politically neutral history and endorsed Joe Biden. This book is a collection of articles about the politics, economics, and technology of alternate energy and its importance to the future of civilization.
Commentary
In this section I will critique the commentary. Renewable energy advocates commonly make similar mistakes relative to the electric system. Although Bobreski was in power production his expertise in process control is not particularly relevant for electric system resource adequacy issues. Consequently there are misconceptions similar to those Richard Perez made arguing that New York should embrace a solar energy future.
The commentary is a mixture of good and bad points. He starts out explaining that technology advances are necessary to make the Climate Act Scoping Plan work.
A call to grandma cost about $5 back in 1970 which is about $38 today. Now the same call is almost nothing. My point: Technology today comes in leaps and bounds and fast. It improves so fast that as soon as you buy some new device, it is obsolete in some way the minute you use it.
My concern is are we becoming dependent upon technology’s rapid evolution to solve our problems? The scoping plan appears to count on this very thing to be successful. Can it happen? I think the answer is yes, but it’s a cautionary yes.
There are limits to this analogy for the electric system. Wind and solar energy have been subsidized for decades in the hopes that the technology would evolve to the point where it could stand on its own. However, there is no sign that the need for those subsidies will disappear anytime soon.
Theresa Hansen of “T&D World” magazine says, “Some locations in the US might meet President Biden’s goal of 100% clean energy by 2035, but I don’t see the entire country being fueled by zero carbon sources 12 years from now.”
“T&D World” is a trade publication for the power transmission industry and they ought to know!
It may be true that “some” locations may have 100% clean energy by 2035 but I don’t expect that it will be any large jurisdiction. I recently described problems with the transition including the European experience showing that wind is not viable, the costs of wind and solar in Germany are untenable, and that a rapid energy transition has many risks but that information is being ignored. There is a reason trade publications are called trade rags. They will publish anything to appeal to their readership.
In the past five columns, I have tried to put together some information about the directives of the Scoping Plan for the energy future of NYS. I concentrated on solar, wind, the grid and storage systems.
I would like to call this a story, because the efforts made by the state to go “green” stretch back over 40 years. In 1982 PASNY — now NYSERDA — planned to place a wind turbine on the shore of Lake Ontario. Numerous studies in NY have been performed on wind power over those years. Whatever became of this? I have filed Freedom of Information requests on the wind turbine projects proposed by PASNY, but have had no luck finding this information. I was attempting to garner what was already known then and why it wasn’t implemented at the time.
There is one mistake here. The state power authority changed its acronym from PASNY to NYPA not NYSERDA. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority probably did wind turbine assessments for Lake Ontario but I have never seen them either.
A history of learning from others’ mistakes
Back in the early 1980s Germany embarked on an ambitious plan to go solar and wind. The wind turbines in 2022 provided 17.2% of Germany’s electrical power; solar provided about 8%. The problem that is now realized is the cost of making this decision. It was at a time when nuclear was the “energy cure” for clean and cheap energy, production solar panels were only 10% efficient and were very expensive.
To demonstrate my point, Hoffman Electronics in 1955 offered the first solar cell at 1785/watt at 2% efficiency and at today’s prices a solar cell at 21% efficiency by comparison would cost over $18,000 a watt. Germany proceeded anyway. Today the situation is diametrically reversed. Solar is now the cheapest form of providing electrical power. Nuclear is the most expensive. Although Germany produces about 25% from solar and wind it came at too big a cost.
This argument is based on the presumption that solar is currently the cheapest form of electric power. However, that is only true if the reference is 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 half of 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 energy produced by solar from where space is available to site acres of solar panels to where it is needed. 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, 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.
The weak link in NYS’ ambitious clean energy plan is the power storage medium. Choosing the right storage medium is critical and the answer may be to wait until these technologies prove themselves. Right now lithium and fuel cells are the only “off the shelf” storage mediums we have. Both have their issues. Lithium has its safety issues of thermal runaway and current fuel cells are expensive and use platinum, a very limited resource. Lithium too is limited as to availability.
I agree with this paragraph.
It has been said that one form of insanity is repeating a past failed experiment and hoping to obtain different results. The Scoping Plan, to put it mildly, is a highly ambitious plan. It treads in uncharted waters. Its success is hinged upon technologies that are not yet developed or not fully developed. Sure technology has been transformative but is the Scoping Plan actually built around an undetermined future? Will these ambitious plans repeat the mistakes of the past?
These are relevant points and I agree. Interpretation of the mistakes of the past is a challenge. For example, I think that the energy transition problems of Germany were due to the inherent challenge of using intermittent and diffuse wind and solar to power modern electricity and not because solar was expensive at the time it was installed. Overcoming all the reasons why solar produced energy is more expensive than fossil-fired energy is likely an impossible challenge.
Like Germany’s ambitious plan for which the country is now left holding the bag. With NYS’ plan the storage system can be viewed in the same way as the German situation. In my humble opinion, large-scale storage battery technology is the linchpin for the Scoping Plan’s success, a technology essentially at its marketable infancy. You may raise a skeptical eyebrow and note the first accessible battery was invented in 1804! Yes, that is true but there was no practical use for it, ergo no market motivation. Now that also is diametrically reversed. A plethora of battery technologies have come out of the metaphorical woodwork. Improved lithium ion, magnesium, zinc, aluminum, carbon, boron, graphene, iron and who knows what. Each promising their own unique benefit such as size, power density, rechargeability, increased life expectancy.
I agree with this paragraph. New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990. That does not mean we should not do something but it does mean that we have time to address this problem. If the storage problem cannot be solved then there cannot be a transition so I suggest that New York should focus more on developing technology that will enable the transition than on reducing emissions that cannot have any measurable effect on global warming impacts.
Recently the House Ways and Means proposed the “Limit, Save and Grow Act” (talk about a euphemism!) which has passed Congress. This act will greatly impede the change that we can meet the goals of clean energy. Instead it wants to cripple the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for the advancement of alternate energy and a clean energy for the future. The GOP- sponsored bill should have been implemented during the 2017-21 era when that president authorized a $2.25 trillion-a-year spending spree that is responsible for the inflation we have today. This careless spending did not improve health care, education, clean energy or our infrastructure. With this act the GOP wants to stop advancement in alternate energy and a clean environment. Let’s hope the Senate feels differently.
I don’t have any comment on this.
In questioning average citizens, they respond with the three main concerns: the plan does not seem feasible in the amount of time, the cost of converting their homes to all electric, and the costs changing the system in New York.
The Scoping Plan is highly dependent upon Biden’s IRA, which as mentioned is under attack by the GOP. The Scoping Plan is also highly dependent upon technologies which have yet to be proven.
This is an excellent synopsis of my concerns. The Scoping Plan does not include a feasibility analysis relative to existing reliability standards, did not provide cost impacts for the citizens of New York, and failed to provide justification for the ambitious schedule. It does not matter if the IRA is under attack by Republicans. The question is whether it can provide sufficient support for Climate Act implementation.
My conclusion
Yes, we have to do something! Continuing to process oil by shale or sand sites and clear cutting to get there is consequentially damaging our forests and fresh water supplies. Not to mention the added expense of cleaning up these sites. Nuclear power is way too expensive. While solar and wind power have their flaws, they are far less than the path of oil and nuclear. Gov. Hochul must make the right decisions. It might be better to wait on the predictable advance of technology than to build a questionable foundation.
Conclusion
My over-riding concern about the Climate Act is that there is insufficient support to prove that the plans will not do more harm than good. The analyses comparing environmental impacts are biased and incomplete. At this time the Hochul Administration has not prepared a cumulative environmental impact statement that considers the effects of all the wind and solar generation projected in the Scoping Plan. Affordability and reliability concerns have been ignored and it is obvious that technological advances are needed if the transition is to be successful. I agree that the it is better to make implementation contingent upon necessary technology.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 