Category: Climate Act Feasibility

David Turver supports my belief that New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is not in the best interests of New Yorkers.  The basis of his arguments is the unfolding disaster in Great Britain.  His post includes a video of a talk on the topic, copy of the slides, and the argument summary described below.

I am convinced that implementation of the 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.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. 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.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Net Zero Cure is Worse Than the Disease

Turver introduces his arguments by noting that climate change impacts are exaggerated:

Although people like Antonio Guterres have made the foolish claim we have entered the era of global boiling, we have to acknowledge that the world has warmed a bit since pre-industrial times. The alarmist response to this is Net Zero which is an example of a so-called mitigation strategy that calls for everyone to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to save the planet.

Earlier this year I quoted Richard Lindzen’s description of the made-up rationale: “In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.” 

The following paragraph eviscerates the entire rationale of the Climate Act.  Turver explains that the mitigation can never work:

The trouble with this approach is that it can only work if two conditions are met. First, mitigation can only work if CO2 is the only climate control knob. But we know this to be wrong, because the IPCC’s first report showed marked temperature fluctuations over thousand-, ten thousand- and million-year timescales when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were pretty constant. Second, mitigation can only work if everyone else follows the same strategy. But we know that global emissions of greenhouse gases are rising sharply even though ours have fallen into insignificance. Global consumption of coal, oil and gas are at record levels. Neither condition is met, so the UK’s Net Zero mitigation strategy can never work.

Turver is as frustrated as I am about the impact of net zero policies like the Climate Act:

Nevertheless, this has not stopped politicians and policymakers rushing headlong into Net Zero policies that have resulted in the UK having the most expensive industrial electricity costs in the IEA, some 4X those of the US and 2.6X Korean prices. This is leading to energy austerity with UK primary energy consumption down 23% since 1990 while global energy consumption is up 72% over the same period. Our National Energy System Operator, NESO wants to double down on energy austerity and halve our energy consumption per capita from 2023 levels by 2050.

High energy prices coupled with energy austerity have led to economic stagnation. There is a strong correlation between reduced energy use and slow growth, with the EU27 and US growing faster than the UK because they have had smaller cuts to energy use. Korea, India China and the rest of the world are using much more energy and their economies are powering ahead.

I do not see any scenario where these impacts will not occur in New York.

The rationale for the Climate Act is that we have a problem, that it can be solved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that there is an easy way to reduce emissions.  Turver describes the myths created to promote renewables:

Despite the obvious economic and social costs of Net Zero, a series of myths have been created to support the renewables agenda. They claim renewables are cheap, but we pay £11bn/yr in renewables subsidies, £2.5bn for grid balancing and a further £1bn for the capacity market. National Grid have announced £112bn in spending on grid expansion by 2035 which will also find its way on to our bills. Moreover, the cost of renewables is rising and projects like Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea Project Four have been cancelled because the developers cannot make money at the prices they agreed. Ed Miliband wants to spend £260-290bn by 2030 on his Clean Power plan to save only around £7bn/yr of the money we spend on gas-fired generation.

Turver explains that the ideologues pursuing these policies think that it will improve the economy:

The second myth is that Net Zero will create jobs and growth. But the truth is expensive energy costs are destroying high-productivity industries like chemicals, petrochemicals, ceramics and steel that are growing more slowly than the rest of the economy or outright shrinking. Instead we are growing less energy intensive low-productivity sectors that are damaging productivity and growth for the whole economy. Green energy jobs are destroying real jobs and cost around £250K/yr per job.

Turver describes another myth that has been used in New York:

The third myth is that renewables increase energy security. But intermittent sources like wind and solar can never deliver security because we cannot control the weather. As a result we came close to blackouts last month as NESO suffered a margin call. We cannot rely upon interconnectors either, because the Norwegian Government fell because of the impact interconnectors are having on their electricity prices.

The Climate Act mandates that all environmental impacts of fossil fuels be considered but pointedly ignores any consideration of wind and solar development impacts.  Turver notes that this is a common flaw:

Finally, it is claimed that wind and solar renewables are green and kind to the environment. But both have very high mineral intensity, meaning massive mines will be scarring the landscape to produce the copper, silver, cobalt and rare earth metals required. They also take up a lot of land, land that would be better utilised to grow food.

The Climate Act does include a requirement to consider adaptation.  Turver explains that adaptation is a superior strategy:

By contrast, adaptation is a far superior strategy. Deaths from natural disasters and weather events have fallen more than 10-fold over the past century as we have used cheap, abundant energy to tame nature. Global life expectancy has doubled since 1850 and cereal yields are up three times since 1961. These remarkable achievements have come despite, some might argue because of, the rise in temperatures and global CO2 levels.

In my opinion, New York short changes this strategy because at its root the Climate Act is a political tool.  Politicians passed the law to cater to specific constituencies but the opportunities to make money via adaptation are small. Given that there are no organized rallies organized by politically connected constituencies at the Capitol lobbying for adaptation policies this strategy is not a priority.

Turver concludes that nuclear power is the answer:

Turning now to the answer. For humanity to thrive, we need cheap, abundant and reliable energy. This will give us the surplus energy that we need to continue to adapt by building flood defences, improving irrigation developing new crop varieties and so on. Adaptation has the big advantage is that it works regardless of the cause of global warming or climate change. The only technology that is proven to work at scale is nuclear power. This will take time, so we need gas as a transition technology. Nuclear power has the added advantage of being energy dense, reliable and requires very little mining so has the smallest overall environmental footprint. We need nuclear power everywhere all at once.

I agree that developing nuclear power is a better choice.  His pragmatic approach to use natural gas as a bridge fuel used to be the accepted path forward.  The vilification of natural gas is based almost entirely upon emotion and precludes a strategy that has proven success.

Conclusion

Philosopher George Santayana, originally stated, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.  In this instance New York is ignoring what is currently happening with respect to the net-zero transition in Great Britain.  The consequences will be the same.  Turver concludes:

Net Zero is ineffective in achieving its primary goal and can never stop the weather changing. The impact of Net Zero policies is devastating for the economy and high productivity, energy intensive industries in particular. Renewables are not kind to the environment and the lies being told to promote them are untenable. The Net Zero cure is worse than the climate change disease.

Russ Schussler, aka Planning Engineer, has published a prequel to an upcoming article discussing the narrative around the green energy transition that is a prominent component of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).

I am convinced that implementation of the 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.  Schussler’s article is relevant because the Scoping Plan proposes to meet the zero-emissions mandate using wind, solar, and energy storage.

Green Energy Narrative

Schussler describes the narrative of the wind and solar proponents aka green energy:

The green energy narrative works somewhat like a magician’s patter, overemphasizing many things of irrelevance and distracting the audience from the important things going on. Misdirection ensures small truths are misinterpreted and magnified, leading to completely unrealistic hopes and expectations.

For example, there have been many simple studies examining how much energy might be produced by a green resource, or set of green resources, such as wind and solar power. These studies ignore important issues such as deliverability, timing, reliability and costs. Based on simple studies the media, activists and policy makers frequently conclude that such resources can be used near universally on a large scale to provide electric service to consumers effectively, efficiently and economically.

This is precisely what happened in New York when the Climate Act authors developed the targets and mandates of the law.  These ideologues misinformed the Legislature and Governor Hochul with claims that “our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro” and “that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs.”

Schussler explains the problem with this argument:

In the green energy narrative costs have been demonstrated, environmental impacts have been demonstrated, reliability has been demonstrated, deliverability has been demonstrated and all shown to possibly work, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME. In the eyes of many, such demonstrations cumulatively strengthen the green energy narrative. However, the gullible audience will be shocked when wind, solar and batteries are not at all well suited to support electric generation on their own.

Schussler highlights three tricks of the green energy narrative: misleading language, false problem and narrative control.

Misleading Language

Schussler addresses the term “renewable” calling it “one of the most misleading bits of language advancing the green agenda.”  He notes:

Different “renewable” resources have vastly differing capabilities. There is vast potential to develop some ‘renewables”. Some “renewables do a great job supporting the grid. Some “renewables” have low energy costs in some areas. Some “renewables” are environmentally sound in some areas. No matter how well individual “renewable” resources might be combined to tick off all the boxes of importance, that doesn’t mean that any combination of “renewable” resources can be found that will work well for any given area. It means little that hydro and geothermal provide excellent support for the grid in an area where you can only add wind and solar. Similarly, just because solar and wind have potential environmental benefits that doesn’t cancel out environmental concerns around hydro in delicate ecosystems.

The problem is that in most areas including New York, “there are no compatible combinations of renewables that at any significantly high penetration level that can provide  affordable, environmentally responsible energy in a reliable manner. Referring broadly to what “renewables” can and might do, serves to hide this inconvenient truth.”

The False Problem – Intermittency is not THE problem for Wind and Solar

Schussler argues that:

It is a fallacy to assume that because part or some of the difficulties associated with a technology can be overcome, that therefore all of the problems associated with a technology can be overcome. Worst case for a “partial solutions fallacy” is when a major problem is hidden by presenting a minor problem as the major stumbling block. Primarily focusing on the minor problem incorrectly implies that there will be smooth sailing once this solvable problem is overcome by hiding the large problem.

To implement a green transition bolstered by heavy wind and solar, all associated problems must be addressed. The major problem associated with wide-scale use of these resources  cannot be ignored.

Schussler goes on to argue:

The real problem is that wind, solar and batteries do not readily provide essential reliability services and support the grid. Most of the talk is around addressing intermittency through batteries and other storage approaches. Misdirection here focuses on intermittency, the smaller problem, while ignoring the major problem.

Schussler believes that it may be possible to address intermittency:

The long-term problems associated with wind and solar due to their intermittency could and may likely be made manageable with improved technology and decreasing costs. But such changes will not make wind, solar and batteries comparable to more conventional generating resources, such that they can play a large role in a green energy transition, because the large problem is not intermittency.

The point of his discussion is that there is another, more serious problem that is a fatal flaw:

Overcoming intermittency though complex and expensive resource additions at best gets us around a molehill which will leave a huge mountain ahead. Where will grid support come from?  Wind, solar and batteries provide energy through an electronic inverter. In practice, they lean on and are supported by conventional rotating machines. Essential Reliability Services include the ability to ramp up and down, frequency support, inertia and voltage support. For more details on the real problem see this posting. “Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid” describes the situation and contains links to other past postings provide greater detail on the problems.

I think that in an electric system that is reliant on weather dependent wind and solar resource, intermittency creates an unacceptable reliability risk.  Current resource assessments are based on observations of the existing uncorrelated generating resources over many years that show that unplanned outages do not happen at the same time.  There is no reason to expect, for example, that all the nuclear plants will be forced offline at the same time.  This characteristic enables the resource planners to determine how much generating capacity is necessary to meet the probability of losing load not more than once in ten years loss of load expectation (LOLE) reliability criterion.  Importantly, I believe that the lack of correlation also means that the capacity needed above firm system load would not change substantially if the LOLE planning horizon was shifted to 1 day in 20 years or more.

The problem with weather intermittency is that it is correlated over large areas at the same time. As a result, variations in weather affecting wind and solar resource availability will require changes to electric resource planning.  Everyone has heard of a hundred-year flood which is the parameter used for watershed planning.  This is the one in a hundred probability that the water level in a river or lake will exceed a certain level in a given year.  Similar estimates of low wind and solar resource availability must be developed and incorporated into electric resource planning. Based on New York data I think a hundred-year planning horizon is appropriate.  The problem is that the costs for such a threshold are huge and the resources will be used less than their expected operating lifetimes.  The resulting reliability risk is that affordable backup resources will be insufficient to support the load during the hundred-year low wind and solar availability event and a catastrophic blackout will result.

Russ and I discussed my interpretation of this reliability risk, and we agreed that we are making the same point in different ways.  If money is not an issue, then it is possible that the intermittency issue can be overcome by overbuilding wind and solar resources, short-term energy storage, long-term energy storage to deal with extended low wind and solar resource periods, and transmission.  However, affordability is a fatal flaw because the costs necessary would be astronomical for a resource that would only be used less than the expected lifetime of the resources.  On the other hand, the grid support requirements cannot be resolved by throwing any amont of money at the problem so that is unsolvable.

Narrative Control – Shameless Hucksterism and the Media

The last green energy narrative trick is controlling the narrative.  Schussler explains:

The green energy narrative is propelled by stories of success. Often these “successes” are very different from what seemed to be represented. We see great stories of planned projects that should do wonderful things, but they go down the memory hole as they prove not to work out. We see incomplete stories where they talk of power generated but not of associated costs or how much better other alternatives might have been.

He goes on to describe an example headline that claims that seven countries get 99.7% of their electricity from geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind power. However, he points out:

Without the spin, collectively those countries get close to 99% of their energy from rotating synchronous geothermal and hydro resources and less that 2% of their combined electric energy from wind and solar. The fact that some countries have high amounts of hydro, does not provide evidence that we are approaching a tipping point involving wind and solar. In fact, one could observe that high levels of renewable penetration are associated with low levels of wind and solar.

Conclusion

Schussler and I agree that it is becoming increasingly apparent that wind, solar and batteries when pursued at high penetration levels result in high costs, lower reliability and poorer operational outcomes. He points out 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.”

The high expectations in the green energy narrative shaped the promulgation of the Climate Act and is driving its implementation.  Schussler describes the inherent misinformation and other various deceptions to hide the real-world challenges for New York’s net-zero transition. As reality sets in, proponents must push this narrative harder and louder to hide the obvious flaws.  I look forward to Schussler’s follow up article that “will more systemically examine the components of the green energy narrative and raise many items of critical importance considerations that the green energy narrative ignores.”

I recently published an article summarizing a Syracuse Post Standard description of the transition problem by Tim Knauss who described the work done by Cornell’s Anderson Lab headed by Dr. Lindsay Anderson. I submitted a letter to the editor describing the implications of Anderson’s work arguing that pausing renewable energy development would be appropriate.  This post responds to the rebuttal of my letter by Peter Wirth, Vice President, Climate Change Awareness and Action who claims that pausing renewable energy is the last thing we should do.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the electric system transition relies on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability issues.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 480 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article 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.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. 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 Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.  New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 addresses DEFR but there is no schedule for resolving the future plans for DEFR in New York.

My primary reliability concern is the challenge of providing electric energy during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  Experts, including those that are responsible for electric system reliability, agree that a new category of generating resources called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) is necessary during those periods.  I have dedicated a page to DEFR which I described in an article that summarized six analyses describing the need for DEFR: the Integration Analysis, New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 Technical Conference, NYISO Resource Outlook, Richard Ellenbogen, Cornell Biology and Environmental Engineering Anderson Lab, and Nuclear New York. 

My Letter to the Editor

On the same day that the Syracuse Post Standard published the Knauss article they published the following letter to the Editor:

The Tim Knauss article on Cornell Professor Anderson’s evaluation of the future New York electric grid is a readable summary of the issues associated with the need for a new dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR). 

However, it does not address the implications on current NY energy policy.

The Hochul Administration has finally started its update of the NY Energy Plan.  The draft scope of the plan describes an electric system that relies on wind and solar generation.  No jurisdiction anywhere has successfully developed such a system.  The State agencies responsible for a reliable electric system agree with Professor Anderson that a wind, solar, and energy storage system requires DEFR.  It is prudent to fund a demonstration project to prove that such an electric system will work or, at the very least, complete a comprehensive renewable feasibility analysis to determine whether such a system will maintain affordability and reliability standards.

The most likely DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready.  Nuclear power has a proven record for resilient electric production, development would not require changes to the rest of the electric system, it is not limited by weather extremes, it has lower environmental impacts, and when life cycle costs are considered is likely cheaper.   Its use as backbone energy would eliminate the need for wind, solar, energy storage, and new DEFR deployment to meet Climate Act mandates.  Renewable development should be paused until proven feasible because it is likely a dead-end approach.

Rebuttal to My Letter

Two weeks later the Syracuse Post Standard published a rebuttal to my letter by Peter Wirth entitled “Pausing cheap, renewable energy is the last thing NY should do”

Roger Caiazza’s letter, “NY must not rely on wind, solar to meet its energy needs” (Nov. 20, 2024), might make sense if it were written in 1954, when Bell Labs announced the invention of the first silicon solar cell.

Today, solar power is the least expensive form of energy, growing in leaps and bounds and the technology improving year by year.

In 1954, the cell developed by Bell Labs was about 6% efficient at converting sunlight into electricity. Today’s solar cells convert 20% to 22% of sunlight into electricity. Advanced research panels have reached as high as 30% efficiency. Every year the rate of efficiency improves.

Solar energy per kilowatt is cheaper than coal, which is less expensive than gas. Nuclear energy is, by far, the most expensive. In 2019, it was reported that New York utility customers subsidized nuclear reactors in Upstate NY to the tune of $540 million.

Given that solar energy is the least expensive, we should not be surprised that solar power has seen massive growth in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2022, solar capacity increased by an average of 37% per year, doubling every 2.2 years. As of the end of 2023, the United States had nearly 210 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity installed, enough to power 36 million homes.

Solar energy is the energy of the future!

The study by Cornell Professor Lindsay Anderson does raise valid, serious questions. The grid needs to be upgraded. Storage capacity needs to be increased. Can we bring enough renewable energy on line quick enough? What is the role of nuclear energy in the short run? This is a complex problem with many moving parts.

However, to pause renewable energy — which has a track record of being the least expensive, becoming more efficient every year and emitting no greenhouse gases, the cause of climate change — is the last thing we want to do.

My Response

There are two problems with Wirth’s response.  If the consumer cost for delivered energy is considered, then solar is not the “least expensive”.  Secondly, Wirth did not acknowledge that until the feasibility of DEFR technology is resolved solar and wind resources may not be viable.

First, I will address the Wirth claim that the “solar energy per kilowatt is cheaper” than coal or natural gas which are both cheaper than nuclear.  I agree that is true.  For example, in this Energy Information Agency analysis the total overnight cost (2022$/kW) states that nuclear is 5.8 times more expensive than solar.  However, I think most consumers care about the cost of getting electric energy delivered to their homes on a kilowatt-hour basis which is what we pay for.  When that metric is used solar is not cheaper than nuclear

For starters in 2023 the New York Independent System Operator reported in the  2024 Load & Capacity Data Report that the energy produced by all the New York utility-scale solar facilities relative to the maximum they could have produced was only 16.6% whereas the nuclear facilities generated 92.5% (Table 1).  Using the two years of data available it is reasonable to say that the ratio between nuclear capacity and solar capacity is around five.  That means to get the same kilowatt-hour production you need five times as much capacity. 

Table 1: Comparison of New York Nuclear and Solar Capacity Factors

Wind and solar resources are intermittent, and energy storage must be included to address that.  Nuclear units operate at full load for months at a time.  Solar only works during daylight.  The cost of energy storage for diurnal variations and seasonal variations must be included in the costs to deliver energy to our homes.  The implication of the study by Cornell Professor Lindsay Anderson is that DEFR is also needed beyond the short-term energy storage capacity. 

Consider the Scoping Plan projected capacity of different resources shown in Table 2.  In 2040 the Climate Act mandates that all electricity generated be 100% “zero emissions”.  The Scoping Plan projects that 40,860 MW of solar capacity and 26,580 MW of wind from various sources will be required.  To back that up an additional 15,388 MW of battery storage and 17,868 MW of zero-carbon firm resource, aka DEFR, are needed.  The cost of the solar share of the backup sources need to be considered for a “apples to apples” comparison of the cost of solar relative to nuclear.

Table 2: Scoping Plan Mitigation Scenario Summary Fuel Mix (Capacity)

But wait there is more.  The life expectancy of solar panels is on the order of 25 years whereas nuclear is at least 50 years.  Solar facilities are spread out and require transmission development. There are additional ancillary support services provided by nuclear that are not provided by solar so there are additional costs there as well.

To sum up, the solar capacity needed to produce the same capacity as nuclear is five times larger.  It is reasonable to assume that the short-term energy storage costs needed for solar and the DEFR requirement will another doubling of capacity costs.  Solar lasts half as long as nuclear so over the long-term, so there is another doubling of capacity costs.  I have no idea what the costs to provide ancillary support services would be or how much the additional transmission development would cost so I won’t include them in the total.  Overall, the long-term cost of solar power is roughly 15 times as much as nuclear power.  Even if solar energy per kilowatt is six times less than nuclear power, the delivered cost over the long term is 2.5 times higher than nuclear.

It is more disappointing that Wirth missed the point I tried to make about the implications of DEFR feasibility on the viability of solar.  Assuming that the reason was my poor description, let me try another way to explain that DEFR is a necessary requirement for renewables deployment as envisioned by the Climate Act.

Anderson and responsible agencies all agree that new DEFR technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system work reliably.  No one knows what those technologies are.  I believe the only likely viable DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I do concede that there are commercial issues that need to be resolved. 

Here is the key point, if the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then the wind, solar, and energy storage approach favored by Wirth cannot be implemented without nuclear.  I estimate that 24 GW of nuclear can replace 178 GW of wind, water, battery storage, and DEFR which eliminates the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and even more massive buildout of wind turbines and solar panels sprawling over the state’s lands and water.  I suggested that it be prudent to pause renewable development until a DEFR technology is proven feasible because the choice and even the viability of any DEFR technology will affect the entire design of the future electric structure necessary to meet the Climate Act net-zero energy system.  Throwing money at renewable energy is the last thing we should do because New York cannot afford to invest in “false solutions”.

Conclusion

Over the years I have had many conversations with people who understand the electric system.  Universally they all agree that the wind, solar, battery storage, and DEFR electric system will never work.  Most also agree that the momentum of the political mandates for this approach will only be checked when there is a catastrophic blackout caused by over-reliance on renewable resources.  I have no doubt that advocates like Wirth will argue that such a blackout was caused by industry not transitioning to renewables correctly despite evidence to the contrary. 

In a recent meeting, someone from the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority suggested that there would be a five-year plan to address DEFR technologies.  In a rational world, the fact that New York is proceeding to implement a “zero emissions” electric system by 2040 that requires a new technology to be developed, tested, and deployed in that time frame would concern the Hochul Administration enough to pause implementation until a DEFR technology is proven feasible in the suggested five year plan.  The fact is that without such technology the renewables approach cannot work, and  if nuclear power is determined to be the only viable DEFR technology, then renewable investments are not needed.