Category: Climate Act Feasibility

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

At the Business Council of New York 2023 Renewable Energy Conference Energy Richard Ellenbogen, President [BIO] Allied Converters, gave the keynote address.  This post summarizes the power point presentation for his address: “Energy on Demand as the Life Blood of Business and Entrepreneurship in the State –  Why NY State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems.” 

Ellenbogen frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).  I have published other articles by Ellenbogen because he truly cares about the environment and the environmental performance record of his business shows that he is walking the walk.   When he sent a copy of the presentation I asked if I could it post after the conference.

Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act Background

The CLCPA 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. 

Richard Ellenbogen

I have published other articles by Ellenbogen because he truly cares about the environment and the environmental performance record of his business shows that he is walking the walk.   His bio is available at the Business Council website.

Ellenbogen’s presentation covers four major points before making recommendations.  I summarize each of these points in the following.

Energy System

Ellenbogen  describes the energy system as an introduction to the problem and what he thinks we should do.  He explains that we want an energy system that provides reliable, affordable, and clean power but that based on what has been happening in Germany the current plan will negatively impact all those features.  He argues that climate change is a real issue and that methane also needs to be addressed.  He makes a good argument that the plans to eliminate natural gas before zero emission sources of electrical generation will decrease the rate of decarbonization.  He projects that the costs of CLCPA implementation will exceed $4 trillion because the entire electric transmission, distribution, and electric service system will have to be replaced.  These costs are far in excess of anything that the Hochul Administration has  claimed.  His introduction concludes that we need to adjust the plan.

Implementation

Ellenbogen describes obstacles to implementation in the next section.  He lists ten specific obstacles and then goes on to highlight a few issues.  He addresses heat pumps and gas stoves.  His presentation points out that converting to heat pumps “will not reduce GHG emissions or energy prices on a generation system supported by fossil fuels”.  Germany has tried to do this and it has not worked out as planned.  In particular, he explains in Germany that “it just moved the CO2 emissions to a different location with an as large or larger CO2 footprint and with much higher operating costs!”.  He points out that Germany’s past 30-year history is New York’s future.  There are similar concerns about gas stove and explains why the conclusions of recent gas stove studies are “extremely questionable” that are being used to justify banning those appliances.

In order to describe the difficulties associated with implementation he delves into the physics of power and energy.  They are not the same thing as shown in the following slide.  CLCPA  proponents often do not properly recognize the distinction and that misleads the public on the capabilities of wind and solar generation.  He also describes the capabilities of different types of generation.

CLCPA Fantasy

The physics lessons are necessary to show why the CLCPA Scoping Plan is a fantasy.  He compares the power and energy projections in the Integration Analysis and then explains why the documentation is using unrealistic energy estimates.  As a result, he points out that “the solar energy output is being over-estimated in the CLCPA by 72%”.  There is a slide that describes the CLCPA generation plan that concludes that the assumptions are unrealistic.  Keep in mind that the Integration Analysis model back calculated the resources required to meet the CLCPA targets but did not incorporate a feasibility analysis to determine if those assumptions were realistic.  He points out that the benefits claimed do not consider state emissions relative to the rest of the world:  “NY state could eliminate 100% of its GHG emissions and not affect damages caused by climate change”.  He also notes that “in the last two years the rest of the world GHG emissions increased seven times as much” as New York total emissions.

Reality

Ellenbogen summarizes New York State energy in a chart with four columns that list energy use in  gigawatt-hours:

1. Total existing energy use
2. Energy use if it was fully converted to electric systems
3. The amount of storage expected to be installed by 2040 according to the recently released NYSERDA NY state energy roadmap
4. The amount of new renewable generation that will be installed by 2035.

He makes two points with the graph.  The renewable energy installation schedule is falling behind as he predicted in March 2019.  The other point is that converting buildings to all electric energy has a hidden problem.   Natural gas deliveries to homes are “used with an efficiency over 80% to 95% during onsite combustion so replacing it will require staggering amounts of electrical generation.”  In order to replace it power plants will have to generate the needed electricity because the renewables won’t be reading in time.   Power plant efficiencies are in the range of 33% – 50% and there is another 7% energy loss on transmission lines delivering it to the end user.

Short-term Recommendations

 His presentation explains that we need to decrease energy use and increase renewable energy development to reduce the carbon footprint.  He goes on to describe problems with energy storage.  All this leads up to his recommendation to keep onsite gas combustion in place so that less energy is needed to heat homes and energy storage is not needed.  He makes a total of ten short-term recommendations that will rapidly reduce GHG emissions with much lower installation costs while also slowing or reversing utility bill increases.  The ten recommendations are:

1 – Do not electrify buildings that run on natural gas – while it will reduce GHG at the building, it will increase it as much at the generating plants While forcing residents and the utilities to incur enormous rewiring costs. There will be no reduction in column a (fossil fuel consumption).  Also, the gas stove analysis that was done recently was mathematically flawed and should not be used to set public policy. However old gas stoves should be replaced with new ones and a gas detector.

2 – Focus heat pump efforts on locations that use oil heat or that use radiant electric heat. Those locations will see a significant reduction of GHG and heat pumps will reduce grid load when compared to radiant electric heat.

3 – Focus resources on expanding grid infrastructure. This will reduce the cost of installing solar in upstate locations and reduce the number of system cancellations allowing the state to increase renewable energy development.

4 – Increasing grid infrastructure will also help with the installation of chargers for the electric vehicle wave that is about to arrive, with or without the state mandate.

5 – Do not install large amounts of battery storage until there is sufficient renewable generation to support the storage. It will increase fossil fuel usage while incurring an enormous capital outlay and starving other projects of funding. They will also decay well before sufficient renewable generation is installed.

6 – Replace older generating plants with higher efficiency combined cycle natural gas generating plants. The state will need the energy to support the EV’s and the newer plants are far more efficient. It will lower energy use, reduce gas usage and put downward pressure on the commodity price.

7 – Develop technologies other than electrolysis to generate green hydrogen (thermochemical, pyrolisis, etc.) Place an emphasis on hydrogen injection into natural gas combustion plants. It will decrease gas usage and increase combustion temperatures which reduces NOx emissions and overall energy use It will greatly lower GHG emissions at those generating Plants

8 – Focus available natural gas resources on combined heat and power systems. It will reduce the utility bills for the system owners while also reducing requirements for grid infrastructure. Allow multiple buildings to form micro-grids to utilize the thermal output and increase the generation capacity. It will greatly reduce statewide energy use and reduce the need for as much transmission infrastructure

9 – Allow Micron Technologies to build a combined cycle plant the size of Cricket Valley Energy Center on their property. The Micron facility will use more energy than the state of Vermont. With generation on-site, the thermal energy could be used at the plant and the 350 GWh of annual line loss will be eliminated. Instead of making them look “green” on paper by buying carbon credits, let them be green

in reality with high efficiency generation and have lower energy costs to make them more competitive and able to recoup the $5 billion rebate without faking it. That will eliminate the increase in statewide energy use related to the facility.

10 – Figure out how the utilities can interconnect the 9 GW of offshore wind because at the moment, no one is certain how to do it. There is limited space for underwater cables. Without that, energy curtailments will occur and impede the increase of renewable energy development, unless they use the alternative idea which is to run transmission lines across Long Island where there will be inevitable NIMBY delays.

Long-Term Recommendation

His long-term recommendations call for the development of 12 GW of nuclear generation.  That is equivalent to six facilities the size of the recently closed down Indian Point plant.  He suggests that they should use a circular fuel cycle to cut down on nuclear waste and be located near existing plants that already have necessary infrastructure.  He argues that the fatal flaw of the state’s plan is the cost of the energy storage required to backup wind and solar.  Even though nuclear is expensive the costs will be much lower than the any storage options.  In addition, the land required to provide the power would only be 3% of the land for just the solar developments.

Conclusion

Ellenbogen provides a rational and pragmatic approach to greatly reduce GHG emissions at costs that would be far less expensive than the costs of the CLCPA.  At some point the Hochul Administration is going to have to confront the reality that no amount of dodgy cost benefit analysis can avoid the reality of enormous costs.  Also ignored are the technological challenges associated with a new resource that can be dispatched without generating emissions.  Ellenbogen proposes to use the only proven resource that meets those requirements and I agree that his long-term recommendation to develop nuclear power is the only chance to succeed.   I fully support his argument that New York State is headed down a path that has not worked elsewhere as described in the following slide.

On June 18, 2023 the Syracuse Post Standard published a commentary, Five Reasons New Yorkers Should Embrace a Solar Energy Future by Richard Perez, Ph.D.  According to the introduction “This essay aims 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”.  This post explains why I disagree with just about everything in the essay.

The only reason that New York is pushing solar as part of the energy future of New York 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. 

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.

Commentary

Against that backdrop I address the five reasons Dr. Perez uses to promote solar energy.

Abundance: The sun is a vast energy resource that powers our planet’s weather and sustains life. In just a few hours, Earth receives more solar energy than the total annual energy consumption of all economies, combined. In a week, it receives more solar energy than the combined reserves of coal, oil, natural gas and uranium.

So what?  According to the US Geological Service water covers the about 71% of the earth’s surface and yet there are deserts with very little water available for use.  The critical requirement is the need for energy when and where needed and New York solar is not situated well in that regard.  The Scoping Plan strategy to decarbonize relies on electrification of homes and transportation so future expected peak loads will occur in the winter.  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 expectations for solar resource availability.   The New York Independent System Operator does not plan on any solar contribution to resources available for the peak winter hourly load.

Growth of solar technology: Solar technology, known as photovoltaics (PV), has experienced significant expansion. Since the 1980s, PV deployment has consistently grown at a remarkable annual rate of 30%, overcoming economic and political fluctuations. This growth is due to improvements in efficiency, versatility and cost-effectiveness, enabling solar to enter new markets successfully. Experts predict this trend will continue, and, if the stable 30% annual rate persists, by the early 2040s, there may be enough solar installations worldwide to entirely power global economies.

If it is so good, then why does deployment rely on direct subsidies?  Solar proponents don’t acknowledge the incompatibility of solar resources with electric system reliability.  In order to match generation with load requirements grid operators must dispatch generating resources to match the load.  Solar PV facilities are not dispatchable so their deployment complicates rather than enhances grid operations.  Finally, there will always be limits on just how much power can be obtained from any solar panel.  Therefore, I suspect that solar will always rely on direct subsidies to make it competitive.

Affordability: Reports from leading financial advisers such as the Lazard Bank show that utility-scale solar electricity has become the least expensive form of electricity generation. Solar power is now considerably cheaper than new coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. Experts anticipate solar electricity becoming even cheaper in the future, with a projected 50% cost decrease within the next 15 years. Moreover, solar plants can be built and operational within months, making them economically advantageous compared to the lengthy construction time for nuclear plants.

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 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 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, 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 than conventional generation.

Reliability: Solar energy’s intermittency has been a concern, but solutions are emerging to ensure a continuous power supply available day and night year round without fail. These solutions include energy storage, optimized integration of solar and wind energy, and maintaining a small degree of flexibility with conventional power generation. The most efficient solution, however, involves overbuilding solar installations. These firm power solutions are expected to reduce the cost of reliable solar and wind electricity to levels competitive with current energy markets. The International Energy Agency predicts that most economies worldwide will achieve 100% renewable electricity generation at a cost of 3-7 cents per kWh.

The discussion of costs above listed all the resources necessary to provide reliable energy from intermittent solar resources.  Renewable energy proponents don’t acknowledge or understand the resource adequacy analyses the NYISO performs to ensure the system meets New York’s stringent reliability standards.  The NYISO has a process that has been developed and refined over decades that determines just how much extra power capacity is necessary to cover the unexpected loss of operating capacity at any one time.  A fundamental presumption based on observations in the NYISO analyses is that conventional generating resources operate independently.  The problem wih a generating system dependent upon wind and solar resources is that there is a very high correlation between wind and solar output across the state.  At night every solar resource provides zero energy and whenever there is a storm large portions of the state will be covered by clouds.  There are similar issues for wind resources that can last for days.   NYISO and the New York State Reliability Council are just coming to grips with this correlation problem for wind and solar resources and how future resource adequacy analyses will have to be modified to refine the reliability standards. Finally, note that this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the hottest and coldest periods in New York associated with the highest electrical loads correlate very well with high pressure systems with light winds.  In the summer, this improves solar resource availability but, in the winter, when the solar resource is low because days are shorter and irradiance lower this problem makes the supply challenge even more difficult.  The key point is this is a huge reliability risk that will have massive health and welfare impacts if not addressed adequately. 

Resource adequacy by the experts responsible for the electric system contrasts starkly by the cavalier reliability explanation in this section.  Solutions are “emerging” is a hollow promise because of physics.  There is a real concern because all the emerging alleged solutions  must overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Any energy storage system must lose energy as it is stored and then again as it comes out of storage.  This limits the viability of every storage system proposed to meet this challenge.

Overbuilding is touted as the “most efficient solution” but it has consequences.  This solution recognizes that storage is expensive so overbuilding solar installations reduces the periods when it is necessary to rely on storage to meet demand peaks.   This affects the so-called duck curve created when distributed solar resources reduce net demand during the day (the duck’s belly) but sharply increase demnd at sunset (the duck’s neck).  As more solar resources are added the difference is increased and the challenge to balance load and generation is more difficult.

Given all the issues that I described above, the statement: “These firm power solutions are expected to reduce the cost of reliable solar and wind electricity to levels competitive with current energy markets” is mis-information.  Every jurisdiction that has increased the use of solar and wind resources without the use of other uniquely available resource like hydro or geothermal has seen massive increases in costs.

Environmental footprint: Solar energy has a significantly lower environmental impact compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power. While it is not entirely free of environmental concerns, it poses fewer climate, pollution and accident risks. Concerns regarding land area for solar farms are often exaggerated. Studies show that achieving a 100% renewable PV/wind future for New York would require less than 1% of the state’s total area. Furthermore, solar farming can generate revenue for communities, provide support for farmers, and be implemented efficiently. PV farms are considerably more space-efficient (50 to 200 times more) than exiting energy farming industries harvesting corn ethanol.

The comparison of environmental impacts in the Climate Act Scoping Plan and this statement is biased.  The Climate Act mandates that upstream emissions and impacts be considered but does not apply the same condition on wind and solar resources.  The claim that there are lower environmental impacts may be true for New York but 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 as here.

Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries all require significant processing and mining that are not considered in this assessment of environmental footprint.  Mark Mills explains:

It has long been known that building solar and wind systems requires roughly a tenfold increase in the total tonnage of common materials—concrete, steel, glass, etc.—to deliver the same quantity of energy compared to building a natural gas or other hydrocarbon-fueled power plant. Beyond that, supplying the same quantity of energy as conventional sources with solar and wind equipment, along with other aspects of the energy transition such as using electric vehicles (EVs), entails an enormous increase in the use of specialty minerals and metals like copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, cobalt: in many instances, it’s far more than a tenfold increase. As one World Bank study noted, the “technologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly MORE material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”

Another ignored environmental issue is the disposal of the solar panels when they no longer work.  A recent BBC podcast, “The Climate Question,” raises serious issues about the lifespan and end-of-life management of solar panels.  Note that the Hochul Administration has not prepared a cumulative environmental impact assessment for the increased wind and solar development projected in the Integration Analysis so these impacts are not adequately addressed.

I have summarized all my solar development articles here.  Even though “a 100% renewable PV/wind future for New York would require less than 1% of the state’s total area” that does not mean that there will not be significant impacts because the Hochul administration has not developed a solar development implementation plan.  There is no mandate that solar developments meet the Department of Agriculture and Markets  goal for projects “to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”   Projects approved to date have converted 21% of the prime farmland within project areas.  Another major failure is that there is no requirement for utility-scale solar projects to use tracking-axis solar panels.  As a result, the estimates of the capacity needed are under-estimates because I have yet to find a solar development that has committed to that type of panel.  Consequently, permitted facilities will have lower capacity factors than assumed in the Integration Analysis so more panels will be needed and more prime farmland lost.

Discussion

According to the article Dr. Perez:

Leads solar energy research at SUNY Albany’s Atmospheric Sciences Research Center. He has served multiple terms on the board of the American Solar Energy Society and as associate editor of Solar Energy Journal. Perez serves on the board of United Solar Energy Supporters, a statewide nonprofit group providing education and information to the public about solar energy.

I highly recommend the post by Russel Schussler Academics and the Grid because it does a good job explaining why academic studies of the energy system need to be considered carefully.  He concludes:

Academic research that promotes improvements to the power greed needs to be evaluated carefully with the understanding that the grid is a complex system full of interactions. Changes to the grid involve numerous hurdles. Language is often imprecise. For instance, when readers see a statement stating “Solar and wind could attain penetration levels of X”. What the statement really means is “Based on the factors I looked at and ignoring a vast number of critical requirements I have not looked at, solar and wind may be able to replace fossil resources at a level of X. But probably not.”    Unfortunately, the statement is often interpreted as “Solar and wind can attain penetration levels of X with no significant concerns.”

I believe that this is relevant to the commentary by Perez.  The abundance of solar energy argument ignores that availability when and where needed is a critical requirement.  Solar energy in New York is limited because of the latitude and weather so there are limits to the value of technological improvements.  The complexity of reliability planning and analysis is dismissed with promises of improvements but there are fundamental problems that must be overcome.  The affordability argument is a perfect example of ignoring a vast number of critical aspects and the experience of all the other jurisdictions that have tried something similar and found massive cost impacts.  The claim of limited environmental impacts is only tenable if the mining and waste disposal impacts are ignored.

Conclusion

Perez concludes “By dispelling these misunderstandings and recognizing the potential of solar energy, New York can embrace an abundant, dependable, affordable, and environmentally friendly energy future.”  The reasons given to address alleged misunderstandings do not stand up to scrutiny. 

The suggestion that a system depending on solar energy will be dependable and affordable would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.  The existing affordability and 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 resources subject to the vagaries of weather, that do not support grid resilience, and include an unknown resource that must overcome the second law of thermodynamics.  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 and people will freeze to death in the dark.

Dennis Higgins passes on his commentaries associated with New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  I asked his permission to present his analysis of the New York State energy legislation associated with the budget.  This commentary was published in the Oneonta Star.

Dennis taught for just a few years at St Lawrence and Scranton University, but spent most of my career at SUNY Oneonta, teaching Mathematics and Computer Science.  He retired early, several years ago, in order to devote more time to home-schooling his four daughters. (Three will be in college next year and the youngest opted to go to the local public school, so his home schooling is ending this June.) Dennis and his wife run a farm with large vegetable gardens.  They keep horses and raise chickens, goats, and beef.  He has been involved in environmental and energy issues for a decade or more. Although he did work extensively with the ‘Big Greens’ in efforts to stop gas infrastructure, his views on what needs to happen, and his  opinions of Big Green advocacy, have served to separate them.

Nuclear reactors are key to sustainable energy

This year’s late state budget has already been soundly criticized by regional legislators (covered in this paper — “Area reps are critical of state budget,” May 3). Most surprising, though, was that Assembly and Senate criticisms overlooked the biggest blunders in the budget’s small print: Albany has dug its heels in on a bizarre slogan-driven energy plan.

Andrew Cuomo’s last budget instituted accelerated siting of industrial solar and wind projects, enabling the state to ignore both local ordinances and thorough environmental review. Gov. Kathy Hochul’s budget continues the assault. To speed the bulldozing of farmland and forest, to silence recalcitrant communities, the budget obviated court action by upstate towns against Albany.

The legislature approved and back-dated an appraisal process that robs rural municipalities of fair tax revenue from the sprawling renewable buildout forced upon them. The governor’s budget includes a “Build Public Renewables” component, instructing the New York Power Authority to join the attack on home rule, private property and the environment. Because NYPA is a government entity, it would pay no taxes at all. Using eminent domain, NYPA can seize your property for the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles of transmission lines the state’s energy plan will need.

German renewable assets comprise a third of its energy capacity but they have not enabled it to decarbonize. Germany relies on biomass and fossil-fuels, including coal, for half of its electricity. On paper, 30% of California’s capacity is in intermittent resources, but California continues to burn about as much fossil fuel as ever. California imports 30% of its energy from neighbor states, much of it coal-generated. California customers pay near double the U.S. average per kilowatt-hour. Germany’s energy costs are twice those of its neighbor, France. Germany and California have invested decades and billions of dollars in order to show us how to fail calamitously if we follow a nonsensical plan — pretty simple lessons which Albany can’t seem to digest: renewable buildout fails to lower prices, cut fossil-fuel use or ensure reliability.

New York remains determined to forfeit farmland and forest to sprawling solar arrays and gigantic turbines which, mostly, generate nothing. Last year’s wind capacity factor in the state was 22%, so the proposed 10 gigawatts of onshore wind would, on average, generate just over 2 GW. But it could still gobble up a thousand square miles. New York’s solar capacity factor is not much better than Alaska’s. The 60 GW or more of solar the plan projects will generate, on average, about 7 GW, but will require 500 square miles. The state’s energy research and development authority, NYSERDA, suggests that by 2050, New York’s grid might need just 6.8 GW of 8-hour storage. In 27 years, that won’t power New York City for three hours.

Unfortunately, a reliable affordable grid can’t be designed using press releases and Big Green talking points as blueprints. No one applauding the plan seems to have taken the semester of physics or engineering needed to learn that there is a difference between power and energy.

Power is the maximal amount a resource can generate in optimal conditions, instantaneously. But the energy needed to meet demand any time anywhere depends on how many hours those solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear or gas power plants can keep generating at or near capacity.

Here is a quick lesson: A 2,100 MW nuclear plant such as Indian Point could generate 47,000 megawatt-hours of energy in a day; fully a quarter of what was needed to keep lights, elevators, heat, AC and everything else in New York City running smoothly. Although a 2,100 MW solar farm might reach full capacity for a minute or two at noon during mid-summer, it will generate, on average, only 6,000 MWh daily, possibly none of that when you need it. The nuclear power plant needed 240 acres and supported a thousand skilled workers. The solar farm might need sixty times as much land — about 15,000 acres — and have five permanent employees.

Imagine covering an area the size of Albany or Binghamton in Chinese-made glass panels every single year until 2050, and then discovering that we are still burning as much gas as ever. Backup power for intermittent resources must ramp up faster than combined-cycle gas plants. Lots of simple cycle plants — only half as efficient as combined-cycle — are needed. In fact, the state’s plan requires as much backup capacity as all our current fossil-fuel plants can deliver. The plan triples the state’s required energy imports and exports, so the grid looks reliable on scrap paper.

Albany hopes there will be eager buyers for any renewable energy we can’t use on summer days, and willing sellers for the energy we need all the rest of the time. The grid operator, NYISO, is already projecting an insufficient capacity margin for the metro region. Think for a minute about the expensive, dangerous experiment Albany is undertaking. What happened in Texas when energy failed? People died. How would New York City fare for a week in January with no electricity?

Albany is like an ostrich, head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that there is a better way. A nuclear power plant can run day and night, generating baseload energy at 90% of capacity. While solar and wind need replacement in two decades, nuclear plants can be licensed for 80 years. According to the UN Economic Commission, “there is no science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies.” Indeed, nuclear has the lowest life cycle environmental impact of any generating source. Further, the UNECE report determined that the “maximum consequences of a single [severe accident] are … still comparable with other electricity production technologies.”

Sweden and France demonstrated in the late 1970s and ’80s that decarbonizing with nuclear power could be done in about 10 years. For less money, much less land, generating hundreds of times more permanent jobs than the state’s plan, we could have reliable affordable carbon-free energy, by replacing our fossil-fuel fleet with next-generation nuclear reactors.

Comment

I think Higgins did a great job summarizing the nonsense in the “bizarre slogan-driven energy plan”.  The distinction between power and energy that he defines is a critical consideration.  Building power capacity is easy but providing energy when it is needed most is a challenge that proponents of the proposed Climate Act net-zero transition plan do not acknowledge adequately even if they understand.  Combined with an insistence that zero is the only acceptable level of pollution the plan is unrealistic for all the reasons he describes and will have many unrecognized impacts that will do more harm than good.  I agree that nuclear generation should be a feature of the future energy system.