Unraveling the Narrative Supporting a Green Energy Transition

I recently wrote an article about wind intermittency that created quite a few comments for the version that was published at Watts Up With That.  The commenters were more loud than correct and I found myself wishing that I could reference a document that addressed Green Energy advocacy talking points.  Russ Schussler, aka Planning Engineer, has provided just such a document. 

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  The Climate Act green energy transition outlined in the Scoping Plan is starting to unravel as the politician’s aspirational fantasies meet reality.

Before he retired Russ Schussler was a long-time electric utility planning engineer.  Starting in 2014 he wrote 45 articles at the Climate Etc. blog on a wide variety of topics related to the net-zero transition that is the basis of the Climate Act. He recently published a prequel to this article that discussed the narrative around the green energy transition.  He concluded that “Expectations from the green energy narrative and real-world results are not consistent and this gulf will continue to widen as long as policy makers continue to reflexively buy into the green energy narrative.”

Schussler describes his article:

The purpose of this article is to summarize and debunk many of the issues in the narrative surrounding the proposed green energy transition.   The issues are so numerous that this piece is both too long and too short. A full unraveling deserves a book or series of books. This posting however challenges the narrative through summary comments with links to previous posts and articles which can be read for a more detailed explanation or greater depth. 

Unraveling the Narrative Supporting a Green Energy Transition

In my opinion, the typical green energy transition plan is to primarily deploy wind, solar, and energy storage to replace fossil-fired sources of electric energy. Other sources are included as “green” and clean but mostly as an afterthought.  The green energy transition narrative can be summarized as GHG emissions can be reduced to some aggressive net-zero goal simply by deploying existing technology, will be cheaper because there are no fuel costs, and will not affect the reliability of the electric grid.  Schussler notes that the components of this narrative are appealing and dangerous:

This narrative is compelling to many consumers and major policy makers. Unqualified acceptance of this powerful narrative makes it clear we should all be behind the movement to increase wind and solar generation along with other efforts to expand renewable resources.  Most all of the above statements making up the narrative are “somewhat” true. Unfortunately, the collective narrative as frequently adopted is at odds with the economics and physical realities of providing electric power and supporting civilization. 

How did a “false” narrative become so widely accepted despite dismal real-world results?  A previous posting discussed, “How the Green Energy Narrative Confuses Things” through misleading language (#44). Additionally,  tribal loyalties enable distortions and suppress more realistic assessments (#18, #10,#22, #42, & #39). While others should chime in on the social psychology supporting this movement, astute observers can’t miss the power of fear-based narratives, groupthink, demonization of dissenters and misplaced altruism (#39, #18,& #10).  Incentives and their impact on key actors play a major role (#38 & #29). The media overblowing trivialities and focusing on continually emerging “good news” helps cement undeserved optimism.   Finally, it should be noted that the electric grid has been very robust. In the short run you can make a lot of “bad decisions” before negative consequences emerge to challenge the narrative.

Narrative Statements

Schussler lists 19 component statements of the green energy narrative that are “widely believed, embraced and supported by various experts, a large part of the public and far too many policy makers”.  The article provides a response to each statement that is supported by references to 45 articles he has written since 2014.   This is an excellent resource that can be used to refute the usual suspects when they make narrative claims.  The following topics are included:

1. Renewable Energy can meet the electric demand of the United States and World
2. Renewable Energy is economic
3. Renewable Energy sources can provide reliable electric service to consumers and support the grid
4. Renewable energy sources are inexhaustible and widely available
5. Clean Energy resources don’t produce carbon and are environmentally neutral
6. Renewable Energy Costs are decreasing over time 
7. It will become easier to add renewables as we become more familiar with the technologies
8. The intermittency problems associated with wind and solar can be addressed through batteries.
9. Inverter based generation from wind, solar and batteries can be made to perform like conventional rotating generator technology  
10. Battery improvements will enable the green transition
11. We are at a tipping point for renewables
12. Wind, Solar, and Battery technologies collectively contribute to a cleaner environment, economic growth, energy security, and a sustainable future
13. The world is facing severe consequences from increased CO2 emissions.
14. There will be an inevitable and necessary transition to clean economic renewables
15. Green Energy will allow independence from world energy markets
16. The clean grid will facilitate clean buses, trucks, tanks, planes
17. The third world will bypass fossil fuels and promote global equity
18. Replacing fossil fuels with green energy will have huge health benefits
19. It’s all about Urgency and Action

He acknowledges that it may be argued that the responses are short and lack detailed substantial evidence. He responds:

While there is quite a bit out there that can be referenced, it should be pointed out that the arguments supporting a green transition are asserted without with much serious reasoning and far flimsier support than provided here.  That which is easily asserted without foundation should not require overly demanding refutations. Clearly when and if more detailed claims supporting a green energy transition are made, they can be answered with more detailed rebuttals.

I particularly endorse his description of the academics whose work plays an out-sized role in the Climate Act:

Academics are a key part of the problem of a sustained false narrative. Much of the “evidence” out there comes from small studies of single variables with academic models which are stretched far behind what was analyzed.  Additionally, expert opinions come from many “experts” who “preach” far outside their fields of expertise and training. There are rewards in academia for furthering optimism on the green transition.  There are not so many incentives for nay-sayers.  Academics who understand the problems and would offer caution, generally do not have the reach of those who promote optimism by clouding the facts.  The many half-truths presented from different sources cannot be summed up to imply a credible narrative, even though many have the impression this makes a strong case.  #44

Necessary Energy Transition Narrative Truths

Another section of the article lists and references truths that need to be part of energy transition narrative.  These truths include:

1. Adequately addressing the energy future requires we understand the true costs and benefits of ALL available and potentially available technologies. #1 & #3
2. Large grids are dependent upon and run on rotating machines. #3, #7, #11, #26 & #12
3. No grids run on asynchronous generation only (or majority asynchronous) without significant backup.  Asynchronous wind, solar and batteries without rotating backup resources are not feasible power supply elements for large power systems.
4. Hydro, biomass and geothermal are fine for grid support, but are problematic and/or not available in many areas.
5. Wind and solar face major challenges in achieving significant penetration levels and have many underdiscussed issues. 
6. Costs of Wind and solar resources are often hidden and assigned to others. #5, #6, & #31
7. If Nuclear is the right direction, current efforts at wind and solar are misguided. Nuclear plants run best full out with low incremental cost.   Displacing nuclear power with intermittent wind and solar makes little to no sense.
8. It’s possible to subsidize a few things that have small costs to support development of green resources, but small costs multiplied by orders of magnitude are crushing. #6
9. Utility costs are regressive, dis-proportionally hitting those less well-off and least able to afford rising costs. These costs are more regressive than taxation schemes. #5 #6, & #31
10. If we must cut carbon emissions without nuclear and hydro, drastically changing civilization is an option that needs to be on the table, openly and frequently discussed and given full considered.
11. Energy markets are not working well.  Perhaps I am wrong, but experience tells us markets uncharacteristically are not working well for energy and energy services. #45
12. Credible plans for any electric energy future, let alone a major transition, will need to integrate studies of both supply and deliverability while balancing economics, costs and public responsibility. No conclusions about what may be worthwhile is possible without such considerations. #16 & #39

Other Topics

Schussler describes other topics that need to be considered:

1. Givern that India and China emissions are greater than US emissions what role should we play in the proposed transition?
2. What about developing countries in the Third World?
3. Can effective regulation, as opposed to current regulatory practices revive nuclear construction significantly?
4. Energy density problem (EROEI) – Can solar and wind provide enough energy to be self-perpetuating considering full lifetime needs?
5. Grid and energy prices are globally critical to healthy economies and a reasonable quality of life.
6. How do we incentivize policy makers to prioritize long term goals versus what’s expedient the next few years. #38 & #1

The last section of text addresses the question – when will reality force a re-assessment of the myths of the green energy narrative.  I will address that section in another post.

Discussion

My experiences writing this blog parallel Schussler’s.  As a result, he provides insights that I empathize with.  For example:

Clearly there are many discontinuities between theory and what is observed in the real world with regards to the potential for wind, solar and batteries.  Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I’d add, “What happens in the field should be more convincing what you calculated on paper”

I have long advocated for a demonstration project and was encouraged that Schussler agrees:

The case for an energy transition based on wind, solar and batteries is grossly incomplete and stands against evidence and reason.  The green narratives sub-propositions in isolation contain some truths, but they are extended in misleading ways.   A collection of 200, 800, or ten million studies showing that isolated challenges around renewable resources can be addressed cannot make a case for reliable, affordable deliverable energy.  When the resources are ready, proponents can make a case by operating a small system without connection to conventional generation that experiences  varied load conditions and real-world challenges.  When a case for large scale penetration of wind, solar, and batteries has been made with adequate considerations of costs, reliability and deliverability, it can then be reviewed and challenged with detail.

I want to emphasize an important point about Schussler’s work.  It is from an expert whose career was dedicated to electric resource planning.  The following paragraph is advice that New York politicians that think they know best for energy policy should take to heart:

Planning must balance economics, reliability and environmental responsibility using  real workable technology which conforms with the physics of the grid and meets the needs of society (#15,#16, #25, #23 & #32).  Electric supply and the grid are too important to base policies upon poor narratives and incomplete understandings. Hope for future improvements must be based on realistic expectations.  Going a short way down the “green” path is easy.  Adding a bit more “renewables: isn’t that expensive and the gird is plenty robust for incremental hits.  For most involved, it’s easier to go with that flow than to stand up for long-term concerns.  But we are getting closer to the cliff as costs continue to increase and reliability problems become more prevalent. 

Conclusion

I think it is frightening that someone whose expertise I admire is worried about the scope of the problem and the possible ramifications.  Schussler concludes:

Policy makers need to consider a fuller and more complete array of truths around renewables and the grid. Rigorous considerations of many complex and interlinking issues between generation and transmission are needed to build and support modern grids. No-one, even those with a lifetime in the business, fully understands everything involved. Experience and incremental changes have served the development and operation of the grid well.  Many outside “experts”,  have next to no real knowledge of the complexities involved and propose dramatic changes. Without serious and time-consuming efforts from policy makers, real grid experts can’t compete with proposals that are basically founded upon tee-shirt slogans.  Spending money, altering systems, and hoping for the best based on the green narrative alone is a recipe for disaster.