Category: Climate Act Feasibility

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.

On September 9, 2024 the Hochul Administration initiated the development of the State Energy Plan announcing the release of a draft scope of the plan.  On November 15 New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) sponsored a related webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan”.  My first post on this webinar described the response to my question does New York need a Climate Act feasibility analysis. This post addresses the presentation of one of the speakers.

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 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 470 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.

Takeaway Message – If you don’t have ~15 minutes to read the whole thing

This article describes the presentation by Janet Joseph who was deeply involved in the development of the Scoping Plan.  She noted that issues associated with reliability and affordability are real problems that the advocacy community must address. The insurmountable problem with that is reality bats last. 

Her presentation and the others in the webinar did not provide solid support for the listeners to address the reliability and affordability problems. In my previous post about this webinar I documented that the claim by Dr. Robert Howarth that no new technology is necessary is contradicted by the agencies and organization responsible for electric system reliability.  Janet Joseph’s presentation disparaged those professionals so I expect that will be the essence of advocate comments.   Her presentation also argued that the energy plan should align with the Scoping Plan ignoring the fact that there hasn’t been a response to critical comments on that document.  Worse, the Hochul Administration has never proven that the list of strategies in the Scoping Plan are feasible. 

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. 

Although related, the Energy Plan should not be confused with the Scoping Plan.  Every several years the New York Energy Planning Board is required to update its overall energy plan for the state. The process begins with an initial document that identifies a “scope” of work–meaning the set of things to be evaluated in the plan with a defined planning horizon of 2040. This makes the Climate Act’s 2040 goal of carbon-free electricity particularly relevant. That plan is to rely on wind, solar, and energy storage.  In my opinion, the Energy Plan must prove this will work.

Key Takeaways from the Event

The description of the New Yorkers for Clean Power sponsored a webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan” stated:

on November 15th. We are electrified by the demonstrated interest and information shared to support New York’s climate goals through the development of an ambitious and equitable State Energy Plan. To recap, our featured speakers were:

• Janet Joseph, Principal, JLJ Sustainability Solutions (Former VP of Strategy and Market Development, NYSERDA

• Dr. Robert Howarth, Member, New York’s Climate Action Council, and David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University

• Christopher Casey, Utility Regulatory Director for New York Climate and Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

We’re excited to share the recording and slideshow from the event: Here is the recording of the event and check out the Presenters’ slides here.

Key Takeaways from the Event

• Energy Plan is foundational to achieving New York’s climate and energy goals, aligning policies with the CLCPA.
• Engagement from advocates, community members and developers is critical for ensuring equitable and actionable outcomes.
• Challenges like building decarbonization and system reliability require innovative solutions and statutory changes.

This post addresses the presentations of Janet Joseph with respect to my concern that transitioning the New York electric grid to one that relies primarily on wind, solar, and energy storage will adversely affect reliability and affordability. 

Janet Joseph Presentation

The introduction for Janet Joseph notes that before her present gig with her own consulting firm she worked at the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).  In that role she was involved in the development of the Scoping Plan and earlier iterations of the Energy Plan.  Her

presentation noted that now that she is on her own, she can say what she “really thinks” about the transition dictated by the Climate Act.

One of my issues with New York’s unilateral net-zero transition is that we are such a small player in this global problem that whatever we do really cannot make a difference.  Joseph argued the opposing view that New York’s climate agenda is important.  She believes that New York needs to lead the way showing other jurisdictions how decarbonization can be accomplished.  “Mother nature’s accounting system is the only one that matters means we have to push for things that can be replicated in other regions”.  She did note that political accounting means we must push for policies that provide real co-benefits.  There were many things stated during the webinar that I take exception to, and this is one of them.  The calculation of co-benefits is largely a values judgement exercise that the Scoping Plan has biased by over-estimating benefits and ignoring disbenefits.  I could go on, but this is a minor issue relative to the Energy Plan.

Joseph explained the differences between the Energy Plan and Scoping Plan.  Her description of the Energy Plan concerns me.  She stated that the energy plan is the original place where NY’s “progressive energy policies and practices originated” due to the energy crisis of the 1970’s.  In my opinion one of the major tenets of progressivism is the preference for equity over equality which I believe adds unnecessary risks to electric system planning.  Note that the NYCP takeaways include the desire for “equitable and actionable outcomes”.  Joseph also said that the Energy Plan is “the vehicle used to push many progressive policies in New York”.    Equity “recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome”.  On the other hand, “equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities”.   Translating that difference into electric system planning is a distraction for safe and adequate power for everyone.

Jospeh’s presentation notes that policies like renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency, solar and storage issues all came from the energy plan.  I am disappointed by her remarks related to renewable energy.  She stated that “In the 1990’s, get this, we were debating 300 MW of renewable energy” because the opposition at the time said, “it would bring the system down”.  She concluded “Same arguments and same barriers in different decades” insinuating the proposed transition is simple.  In the first place, the scale of the renewable development is different – in 2030 wind and solar is expected to be over 100 times greater than 300 MW.  I think it is irresponsible to demonize the people who are responsible for keeping the lights on by anyone who will suffer no consequences by being wrong.  The biggest issue is that we are now debating whether the existing electric system of New York can be converted to one that relies on renewables even though no jurisdiction anywhere has successfully done so.  Disparaging New York’s electric experts gives the advocates who listened to the presentation false security and hope.

Joseph noted that while we have a comprehensive climate plan, we still must do the energy plan.  This is another point of disagreement.  In my opinion, the Scoping Plan is not comprehensive, it is just an outline of strategies that the Integration Analysis claims will comply with the Climate Act mandates. There has never been any responses to critiques raised during the Scoping Plan comment process but, more egregious from my perspective, there has never been a feasibility analysis. 

In the presentation she said that there were five things advocates should be looking  to be included in the Energy Plan but in her presentation she only described four things.

She said that the first aspect that needs to be included in the Energy Plan is alignment between the scoping plan and the energy plan.  Joseph argued that confusion and conflict between the two documents would cause delays, and we do not have time for that.  She wants “at a minimum, high level alignment, and ideally all the way down to perfect synergy of these documents”. In my opinion, the presumption made by the presenters that the Scoping Plan is feasible is simply crossing our fingers and hoping.  I raised many issues in my Draft Scoping Plan comments that were not addressed by the Climate Action Council and remain unresolved to this day.  Therefore, the Energy Plan offers the opportunity to correct the oversights and errors in the Scoping Plan.  It is inappropriate to assume alignment of the documents is appropriate.  We need to determine feasibility.

The second aspect raised was that the Energy Plan is a medium range plan from 2025 to 2040.  Her presentation urged the advocates to not debate how we will achieve the last 20%.  Joseph said that her experience has led her to believe we should focus on what we need to do to achieve the next 20% of reductions.  I disagree with this concept because it is likely that when the technologies for dispatchable emissions-free resources are selected nuclear power will be the best choice.  If that is the case, then renewables are not needed, making the current approach a costly dead end.

The third item she mentioned was that the Energy Plan has its roots in system reliability.  She said opponents to the renewables approach will be harping on reliability and affordability.  She admitted that those issues are real and that they will resonate politically.  Then she said that “the advocacy community must be armed to fight that battle and address the impact on reliability and affordability as best you can.”  She went on “System reliability issues will be the primary lenses through which recommendations will be filtered.”  Then she gave an example where the Urban Green Council partnered with a utility and a “credible analytical entity” to determine where reliability issues would not be an issue for New York City residential building electrification.  This is a common advocacy approach where “results for hire” consultants develop an analysis that supports the pre-conceived conclusions of funding organizations.  In my previous post on this webinar I documented that a similar targeted analysis that runs contrary to the findings of all the agencies of responsible for New York electric system reliability is being used to support renewable development.  In my opinion, the only way to refute concerns about reliability issues associated with renewables is to cherry pick analyses and ignore reality.

The fourth aspect energy plan she made is particularly concerning.  She said that (my transcript):

We have to evolve and expand from a narrow technocratic focus on the engineering requirements that keep the fuel flowing and the lights on to one that considers how our system, our infrastructure, and our practices need to change to increase the resiliency of human beings to survive within the new energy system dynamics and new climate extremes.

This aspirational baloney is difficult to interpret.  The interpretation and weighting of the proposed energy plan effects on “new energy system dynamics” and “new climate extremes” makes all the difference in the interpretation of her comments.  When advocates ignore the difference between weather and climate to ascribe every extreme weather event to climate change then the concept that everything needs to change to deal with the supposed existential threat is necessary.  She could be arguing that the Energy Plan must address this effect.  On the other hand, the reference to “new energy system dynamics” could be a tacit acknowledgement that relying on weather-dependent resources is an inherently less reliable approach.  I believe that relying on weather-dependent resources will inevitably mean that someday electricity will not be available when needed most.  She goes but does not clarify this distinction in my opinion:

“In short we need more focus not on just system reliability in this energy plan but resiliency.  We cannot be afraid to talk about what happens when the lights go out and how people remain safe in that event.  We will have storms, we will have downed power lines, and the lights will go out.  We need to think through this.  It is not just a New York issue.  This is a certainly a global issue.  We will have extreme weather that will affect the totality of our infrastructure. 

This is bigger than an emergency preparedness plan.  Our future energy and related infrastructure policies and practices need to be shaped with these considerations in mind.  Here too, I sat in too many conversations over the years where people are debating – That shouldn’t be in an energy plan – it should be in an adaptation plan.  “That’s not a climate plan – it should be in a resiliency plan”.  It doesn’t matter where it is folks.  We have to start thinking through the weather extremes that we will be faced with, this rapidly changing energy system and how it affects people.  We need more focus on resiliency. 

She then threw out some ideas to “make it real”.  She suggested both heating and cooling capabilities should be mandated for landlords in our future climate.  She recommended more “community resiliency facilities with backup power”.  She also suggested that home designs should include “climate-safe zones” and maybe “requirements for solar and storage on every new home and subsidies for those who can’t afford it”.  She recommended weatherization to increase passive survivability in the event of a power outage.    She admitted that we have “GW of solar that is “not going to help us from a resiliency standpoint” and concluded that we need to determine what to do to improve upon this.

She concluded that:

I think that we have made tremendous progress in New York State in the Climate Scoping Plan developing really comprehensive GHG mitigation strategies.  I am proud to have participated in that activity.  But I don’t think we really have moved the needle on policies and practices that would develop a more resilient system at the central community and local level.  Just to be clear

I am not in the camp of those people who think every change we are making to reduce GHG emissions and increase renewables is going to take the system down.  I am in the camp that we have to think through this and make sure we are building in resiliency all the way down to the local level.  So I am hopeful that this energy plan will pick up on those hard resiliency discussions in a very meaningful and substantive way.  These are hard conversations but we have to start having them. 

The interpretation of which factors affecting resiliency she is concerned about is important.  She has enough experience and background to know that the new energy system dynamics have real risks.  I have no doubt that she sincerely believes that “new climate extremes” is a real thing.  If she believe that the primary resiliency driver is more extreme weather, her suggestions boil down to whether the emphasis should be on mitigation or adaptation.  On the other hand, she could be admitting that the new energy system dynamics are a real concern that could be addressed by accepting less reliability and just dealing with blackouts better.  That is not outside the realm of possibility because I have read climate advocates who have argued that it is appropriate.  However, that response is antithetical to New York electric resource planning doctrine and I think most electric users in the state would not accept more frequent and longer blackouts as an acceptable risk for reducing GHG emissions.

Conclusion

It was interesting that Janet Joseph recognized that reliability and affordability are real.  Then she said that “the advocacy community must be armed to fight that battle and address the impact on reliability and affordability as best you can.”  The insurmountable problem with that is reality bats last.  I have three related concerns about presentations at this webinar.

The presentations gives Climate Act proponents false confidence that the proposed transition to an electric system that relies on wind, solar, and energy storage has few risks.  In my previous post about this webinar I documented that the claim by Dr. Robert Howarth that no new technology is necessary is contradicted by the agencies and organization responsible for electric system reliability.  Janet Joseph’s presentation disparaged those professionals inappropriately in my opinion.

Joseph’s remarks also argued that the upcoming Energy Plan must align with the Climate Act’s Scoping Plan.  I do not think that the Scoping Plan proved that its proposed strategies would maintain system reliability standards or that it would be affordable.  In her leadership role on the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel she never responded to related comments and questions on the Draft Scoping Plan.  That lack of acknowledgement of criticism was true of all the critical comments made.  As a result, I think the Scoping Plan is flawed and must not be used as the template for the Energy Plan.

Finally, I disagree with the Joseph’s support for progressive equity concepts relative to the electric system.  That approach would require treating the availability and affordability of electricity differently to certain constituencies.  That is anathema to me because I think there will be serious unintended consequences.

This article was also published at Watts Up With That.

The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland “publishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.”  Bulletin 416 Special Issue publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux should be a warning to proponents of New York State’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). 

I have followed the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 470 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.

Note: This is a long technical post.  The takeaway message is this analysis of the metals required to transition away from fossil fuels compared to the capacity to mine those metals suggests that available metals are “manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand”. Metals availability has not been addressed by the Climate Act implementation plan.

Estimating Metals Needed to Replace Fossil Fuels

The Preface to the Bulletin explains the purpose of the report:

The two contributions published in this Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland highlight that a successful transition to renewable energy requires a comprehensive raw materials strategy that considers both the upstream metal demands and the downstream infrastructure needs. In technological and innovation space, exploring alternative battery chemistries, improving recycling rates, and developing more resource-efficient technologies will be crucial to mitigating the strain imposed on metal supply chains.

The earlier work of the sole author of these two papers has been widely quoted, debated, and criticized in the media and amongst policy makers and academic audiences in the past few years. The premises, process, and conclusions of these studies have questioned the validity of some of the basic assumptions underlying the current energy and natural resource policy, but have still, largely mistakenly, been taken as a statement in favor of the status quo. On the contrary, these contributions are intended as the beginning of a discourse and attempt to bring alternative, often overlooked, views into the discussion about the basic assumptions underlying the material requirements of the energy transition. Out of necessity, they make simplifications in recognizing and mapping out the scale of some key challenges in the raw materials sector that need to be overcome if the energy transition is to be realized. Calculations and estimations need to be refined and, naturally, in addition to raw materials production and the material transition, other crucial aspects such as technology and infrastructure development, workforce requirements, land use changes, and societal impacts, among others, also need to be considered.

Nevertheless, the challenges related to the complex and interconnected nature of the problem should not be taken as a cause to halt the development and innovation needed to overcome it. Further research, policy interventions, and international collaboration are all essential in securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone.

Scope of the Replacement System

The reference to the first article is:

Michaux, S. P. 2024. Scope of the replacement system to globally phase out fossil fuels. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 5–172, 50 figures, 51 tables and 10 annexes.

The Abstract states:

The task to phase out fossil fuels is now at hand. Most studies and publications to date focus on why fossil fuels should be phased out. This study presents the physical requirements in terms of required non-fossil fuel industrial capacity, to completely phase out fossil fuels, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem. The existing industrial ecosystem dependency on fossil fuels was mapped by fuel (oil, gas, and coal) and by industrial application. Data were collected globally for fossil fuel consumption, physical activity, and industrial actions for the year 2018.

The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh.

A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper. This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations).

An estimate is presented for the total quantity of metals required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (EV’s, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal content for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.

It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium.

The analysis takes a bottom-up approach to determine what is needed for global fossil fuel replacement.  For example, Michaux estimates how many vehicles were used for transport by class and the miles traveled to estimate how much fossil fuel was used and the energy needed for replacement.  He proposes non-fossil fuel technology as replacements.  The work estimates “the quantity of electrical energy required to charge the batteries of a complete EV system” and “the quantity of electrical energy to manufacture the required hydrogen for a complete H2 Cell system” as an alternative. Estimates for “electrical energy generation, building heating with gas and steel manufacture with coal” were also determined.  The analysis found that:

The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh. This builds upon an existing 9,528.7 TWh of non-fossil fuel electrical energy generation annual capacity. If a non-fossil fuel energy mix was used (based on an IEA prediction for 2050, IRENA 2022) was assumed, then this translates into an extra 796,709 new non-fossil fuel power plants will need to be constructed and commissioned. A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Four calculations of the size of the power buffer were done (6 hours, 48 hours, 28 days and 12 weeks). Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels, battery banks and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper.

Given that Michaux is trying to estimate global energy use it is understandable that there are many simplifying assumptions.  For the intended purpose I do not think any of my observations would change the general results, i.e., I believe the estimates are close enough for results that are the right order of magnitude. My primary interest is the electric sector.  Section 14: Performance of existing fleet of electricity generation power stations estimates the availability and power production in Table 36.  In Table 38 the assumptions and estimated number of power stations needed to replace fossil-fired power stations are listed.  In the following table I combined data from both tables.

I have a few observations about these results.  Michaux had to estimate the energy split between the power systems. Solar thermal is included, which I think is a niche system suitable only for deserts.   Back calculating from the total energy requirement, he estimated the energy needed for each generation type.  The average installed plant capacity was from a reference and used to estimate the power produced by an average plant of each type.  The availability across the year parameter is close enough to capacity factor that they are interchangeable. I think nuclear availability is low. I am sure that wind and solar advocates would argue that the availabilities used are also low.  The result is a conservative estimate of the number of new power plants needed.

I did not see a distinction between onshore and offshore wind in this article, but the second article described below states:

This study projects that 1.3 million wind turbines (each one assumed to be a 6.6 MW (Megawatt capacity) will need to be operational as part of the task to completely phase out fossil fuels. Onshore units will account for 70% of this number, corresponding to 910,000 wind turbines. Offshore units will account for 30%, requiring 390,429 wind turbines.

In my opinion it would have been better to split onshore and offshore wind into two categories because the availabilities will differ.

The analysis also calculates the size of the power buffer needed to back up the predicted generation resources which is a particular interest of mine.  I will postpone a discussion of that for another post.  For the purposes of this article note that the report includes an exhaustive analysis of energy storage requirements and potential technologies to provide the necessary storage.

The first article estimates the energy necessary for the transition which was used in the second article to determine the materials resources needed for the transition.  The article notes that a massive number of new facilities will be required and that a “large wind and solar power systems would need to be internally self-sufficient and need a buffer for stable operation”.  Despite the caveat that the author did not intend to support the status quo reality intervenes.  Michaux notes: “If there are technical issues in storing the needed quantity of power for the needed time period, then it is concluded that wind and solar power generation systems are not practical as the primary energy source for the next industrial era after fossil fuel based technology.”

Quantity of Metals Required

The second article was referenced: 

Michaux, S. P. 2024. Quantity of metals required to manufacture one generation of renewable technology units to phase out fossil fuel. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 173–293, 38 figures, 60 tables and 2 annexes.

The abstract states:

An estimate is presented for the total quantity of raw materials required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal con- tent for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.

This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities as modelled in a previous study: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations). Metal quantities were calculated for all four capacities and compared with mining production, mineral reserves, mineral resources, and known under sea resources. It was also assessed whether recycling could deliver this metal quantity by comparing calculations against the sum total mined metal between 1990 and 2023. The quantity of metal mined over the last 34 years was inadequate, which means recycling cannot deliver the needed capacity, and the mining of minerals would have to be the primary source of metals for at least the first generation of non-fossil fuel technology. If a metal has not yet been mined, then that metal cannot be recycled.

There are two highlights in the following: the quantity of metals available is “manifestly inadequate” and technological scaling up issues mean wind and solar “may not be viable as the primary energy source” for the transition:

It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium. Comprehensive analysis of these calculations suggest that lithium-ion battery chemistry (on its own) is not a viable option for upscaling to meet anticipated global market demand. This then implies that battery banks would not be viable as a power buffer for wind and solar in the quantities needed. As previous work had shown that pumped hydro storage and hydrogen storage face logistical issues in scale up, the belief of strategic policy makers was that battery banks were the solution. As all of these technologies face scale up issues, wind and solar may not be viable as the primary energy source to support the next generation of industrialization.

Consequently, the development of alternative battery chemistries is recommended. The calculated shortfall in copper and nickel production was also of concern, as both metals are vital to the existing economy and there is no known viable substitute or alternative for either commodity. Another alternative would be to develop an entirely new form of electrical power generation that did not need such heavy resource supply in construction or operation.

The calculations in the first article provided the number of generating resources needed provided.  This article determined how many metals would be required for each resource based on those numbers.  For anyone wanting to evaluate material requirements for wind, solar, and battery equipment the analysis provides a lot of documentation.  Also note that Michaux included metals needed for doubling the current nuclear energy capacity, additional hydropower, and more geothermal.

In an analogous process Michaux calculated the number of zero-emission “technology units” needed to replace fossil fuels in industry and transportation.  Electric vehicles are an example of a technology unit.  Fuel cell vehicles are also included.  Table 49 from the article is the sum of all metal from all parts of this study into one quantity by metal (split into the four different power buffer storage capacities).

Source: Published in Geological Survey of Finland Bulletin 416

Conclusion

This is an ambitious analysis that covers the entire global energy system.  As such there are bound to be oversights and limitations as well as interpretative assumptions that could be issues.  In my opinion, however, the approach and assumptions are reasonable and should give a reasonable estimate of the metals needed.  The mass of metals available is another challenge but I think there is better historical data available.  Comparing the metals needed to the metals available leads to the inescapable conclusion that the dreams of replacing fossil fuels will be unable to overcome reality. The Climate Act implementation plan must evaluate the implications of this analysis before we continue down the current path.