Category: Climate Act

I am fed up with rent-seeking capitalists and naïve academics who claim that wind, water, and solar resources are the only ones needed to provide reliable electric power.  This narrative was used as rationale for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). This post shows by way of example that this is an unrealistic argument.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 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 by increasing costs unacceptably, threatening electric system reliability, and causing significant unintended environmental impacts.  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.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. 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 using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the 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.  Over nine months into 2023 and reality is starting to set in and cast aspersions on the aspirational plans.

My primary focus over the last several years has been New York’s the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).   Robert W. Howarth authored sections of the Climate Act and was a member of the Climate Action Council that is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” .  He submitted a statement supporting the Scoping Plan that exemplifies the narrative that no new technology is needed: 

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated 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. We further demonstrated 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. I have seen nothing in the past decade that would dissuade me from pushing for the same path forward. The economic arguments have only grown stronger, the climate crisis more severe. The fundamental arguments remain the same.

I addressed Howarth’s claim and others in his statement in a post here late last year. I include this because it exemplifies the idea that wind, sun, and hydro can power New York’s electric grid completely.  In this post I consider the challenge of using wind, solar, and hydro to replace one component of the NY grid – New York City’s existing fossil fired units

According to the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Gold Book the New York City (Zone J) fossil generation summer capability in 2022 was 9,026 MW.  This represents the capacity needed to replace New York City’s fossil generation capacity at any hour.  For the purposes of this thought experiment,  I am going to ignore reliability rules related to transmission constraints and in-city generation.  I assume only that New York City needs dedicated availability of 9,026 MW.  There is no chance that an additional 9,026 MW of hydro can be developed in New York and there is no guarantee that the amount of capacity will only be needed during the day which means we cannot use solar.  This example estimates how much wind capacity from somewhere will be needed to provide this dedicated capacity requirement.

New York Wind Variability

In May 2022 I published Climate Act and New York State 2021 Wind Resources that evaluated New York State onshore wind availability.  I used a New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) resource that provides 2021 wind production and 2021 wind curtailment.  The data sets list the hourly total wind production and curtailments for the entire New York Control Area (NYCA).  I have summarized the data in the following table.  Curtailments are those hours when the system load is small enough that wind production is greater than what is needed so the wind power is curtailed, i.e., not used. 

Table 1: NYISO 2021 Hourly Wind Production at the Aggregated NYCA-Wide Level

These data are representative of every wind energy resource data set I have ever seen.  See, for example, analyses for Belgium by Michel at the Trust Yet Verify website or for Australia by Anton Lang.  The crux of the problem is that low-energy density wind resources are highly correlated across wide areas.  Across New York, and other regions, the wind speeds drop across the entire area frequently.  Frequently, as in every time a high-pressure system crosses over the area.  As a result, the mean annual average availability for all the NYCA onshore wind turbines is only 22% and the median is 16%. 

Moreover, I believe it is unlikely that additional sources in a region will change the availability much.  I do not expect any significant change to the low-end onshore wind numbers when all the land-based wind resources proposed to meet the Climate Act net-zero transition are developed.  The overall distribution of expected offshore wind will be similar although the numbers will show slightly higher availability. 

Implications

Wind variability has implications on the use of wind energy to replace firm dispatchable generation.  I use these data as a starting point for this analysis to explain why the fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere does not mean it can be used cost-effectively to replace dispatchable fossil-fired generating in an electric grid that relies on wind and solar as claimed by Dr. Howarth and others.

To estimate the wind resources needed to replace New York City’s 9,026 MW of existing fossil-fired generation I will use the distribution of New York land-based wind with the following assumptions.  In the absence of offshore observed wind energy historical data, I assumed that the wind production would be increased by a five-percentile category from the onshore wind distributions.  In other words, when the onshore wind is at the 75% percentile capacity availability level, I assumed that offshore wind resources are at the 80% capacity level. 

Table 2 estimates the amount of land-based or offshore wind capacity from the New York Control Area necessary to replace  New York City’s 9,026 MW fossil capacity.  Because the observed wind production capability at the 99^th percentile is 78%, 11,563 MW of wind turbine capacity are needed (9,026 divided by 78%) to assure replacement of the existing fossil-fired units in New York City.  For reliability support the wind resources must be able to cover all the levels of wind resource availability.  Half of the time (50^th percentile) 55,068 MW of capacity would be needed.  In order to ensure reliability, wind capacity must be available at all hours but the wind capacities at the lower end of the distribution are unrealistic so a system dependent upon only wind energy is going to have to go wherever the wind is blowing.  The proponents of the wind is always blowing somewhere respond that all New York must do is to import electricity from outside the NYCA to address this but have not used this kind of distribution to determine how much, from how far, would be necessary

Table 2: NYCA Wind Capacity Support Requirements to Replace NYC Fossil – 9,026 MW

To determine how much wind capacity is needed outside of New York, I first determined the

potential wind energy availability within the New York Control Area (NYCA).  For capacity potential I used the larger capacity projections for land-base and offshore wind from two different modeling analyses.  The offshore wind capacity (MW) in the Integration Analysis Scenario 2: Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels was 12,675 MW.  The onshore wind capacity in the NYISO  2021-2040 System & Resource Outlookwas 19,087 MW. Table 3 uses those resource projections to provide estimates of the available energy in the NYCA at each resource potential level.  For each percentile I calculated the available capacity at each percentile for on-shore and offshore wind, summed them, and listed the deficit if the sum was less than 9,026 MW.  For this thought experiment, the projected wind resources can replace the fossil resources up to the 70^th percentile if all the wind power can be dedicated just to New York City at the hour when 9,026 MW of wind capacity is needed in the City.  This means that somewhere between 65% and 70% of the time, wind resources outside the NYCA must provide additional power to replace New York City’s existing fossil resources.

Table 3: NYCA Wind Energy Available from Climate Act Wind Resource Projections

Table 4 provides an estimate of the wind generated capacity available to cover the deficit margin in Table 3 outside the control area in an area similar in size and characteristics to the NYCA 500 miles away from New York City.  For this thought experiment I assumed that the wind capacity at any hour in this region would be at a production percentile 25% higher than the corresponding NYCA percentile.  I believe that there is higher level of spatial correlation than those who believe that the wind is always blowing somewhere acknowledge.  In this example, when NYCA wind levels are at the 65^th percentile I presume that 500 miles away the wind resource will be at the 90^th percentile. Because I believe that wind in all regions of a similar size to New York will exhibit the same wind distribution pattern, a key takeaway is that wind resources 500 miles away are insufficient to always provide support when power outside the NYCA is needed.  The 500-mile resources only cover the NYCA deficit down to 55^th NYCA percentile corresponding to the 500-mile 80^th percentile.  We must go out at least another 500 miles for reliable power.

Table 4: Wind Resource Availability from 10,000 MW of Turbines 500 Miles from NYC

Table 5 provides an estimate of the additional wind generated capacity needed outside the control area in an area 1000 miles away from New York City. I assumed that the wind capacity at any hour would be at a production percentile 50% higher than the corresponding NYCA percentile.  In this example, when NYCA wind levels are at the 50^th percentile I presume that 1000 miles away the wind resource will be at the maximum level of 86%.   Importantly, this assumption is the same as assuming there is no correlation between NYCA wind and 1000- mile wind.  I do assume that the correlation has the same directionality.  In other words, winds in both regions go down at the same time.  Of course, it is more complicated because “somewhere else” winds could go up when NYCA winds go down.  In order to address that issue an analysis for the entire onshore and offshore wind resource availability is needed.

The 1000-mile resource availabilities cover the NYCA deficit down to 25^th NYCA percentile and the 1000-mile 75^th percentile so we must go out another 500 miles to assure replacement of the existing fossil generation. 

Table 5: Wind Resource Availability from 10,000 MW of Turbines 1000 Miles from NYC

Table 6 provides an estimate of the additional wind generated capacity needed within NYCA and the 500- and 1000-mile resource areas in an area 1500 miles away from New York City. I assumed that the wind capacity at any hour would be at a production percentile 75% higher than the corresponding NYCA percentile.  In this example, when NYCA wind levels are at the 5^th percentile I presume that 1000 miles away the wind resource will be at the 80^th percentile.   Even the addition of these resources is insufficient to cover all the power needed by New York City existing fossil resources.  However, it is so close that adding another 1,049 MW of capacity in any of the regions would assure that New York City’s existing fossil generation could be replaced by resources where” the wind is always blowing”.

Table 6: Wind Resource Availability 1500 Miles from NYC

Discussion

The forgoing analysis confirms that the wind is indeed always blowing somewhere and that wind energy resources could replace the existing fossil generation in New York City as suggested by Howarth and others  However, just because it is possible does not mean it is feasible.  The fatal flaw is that New York City requires dedicated resources to replace existing generation when it is needed to keep the lights on.  This is particularly important because the high pressure systems that characterize low wind availability over large areas also are associated with hottest and coldest periods of the year when the electric load peaks and the need for reliable power is the greatest.

Existing fossil generation capacity in New York City totals 9,026 MW.  New York’s Climate Act projected onshore and offshore wind planned capacity is 31,762 MW.  Relying on wind only requires another 30,000 MW located “somewhere else”.  The fatal flaw to the wind blowing “somewhere else” argument for New York City is that those resources must be dedicated to New York City.  The idea that anyone could afford to build 10,000 MW and 500 mile transmission lines for use as backup that will only be used 65% of the time, another 10,000 MW and 1,000 mile transmission lines for backup 50% of the time, and another 10,000 MW with 1,00 mile transmission lines for backup 25% of the time is disconnected from reality. 

Of course, there are suggestions that the surplus power could be stored in batteries or used to make “green hydrogen” to address the low wind availability problem.  However, Howarth claimed that New York “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) and that that it could be cost effective”.   This simple analysis suggests otherwise.

Conclusion

I agree with Francis Menton who has argued that we need a demonstration project to prove all the wind, solar, and energy storage components necessary for a zero-emissions electric grid that does not rely on nuclear power can work.  In addition, I believe that a comprehensive analysis of wind and solar resource availability across the continent that addresses the correlation and energy density deficiencies of wind and solar is also needed.  Based on my work, I think that this sort of analysis would show the need for far more resources than anyone is contemplating at this time.  If New York does not address these concerns correctly people will literally freeze to death in the dark.

I have been writing about the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) for over four years and a constant theme in my work has been concerns about affordability and reliability.  For all the analyses and pontification by the State of New York about the net-zero transition, there still is no documentation describing the costs of the control strategies proposed by the Scoping Plan and estimates of how New Yorkers will pay for the transition.  The focus of this post is on reliability.  I believe that the only way we can be sure that the plans proposed to operate an electric grid that relies primarily on wind and solar is to prove it with a demonstration project.  The project should include all the key elements: wind and solar generation, energy storage, a dispatchable emissions-free resource and any other resources needed to provide necessary ancillary services.   This post highlights work by Francis Menton that advocates just such a demonstration project.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 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 by increasing costs unacceptably, threatening electric system reliability, and causing significant unintended environmental impacts.  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.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. 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 using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the 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.  Over nine months into 2023 and reality is starting to set in and cast aspersions on the aspirational plans.

Demonstration Project Proposal

Last February I did a post on Climate Smart Communities and I proposed a challenge to the local governments that pledged to be climate smart.  Go for it, but not just this virtue-signaling public relations gesture to get some money.  I described Francis Menton’s article explaining that a demonstration project of a mainly renewables-based electrical grid is a common sense prerequisite before there are any more plans or pledges.  I said that Climate Smart Communities of New York should prove their bona fides and develop a demonstration project for their community to address the issues he raised:

Could anybody possibly be stupid enough to believe the line that wind and solar generators can provide reliable electricity to consumers that is cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels? It takes hardly any thought about the matter to realize that wind and solar don’t work when it is calm and dark, as it often is, and particularly so in the winter, when it is also generally cold. Thus a wind/solar electricity system needs full backup, or alternatively storage — things that add to and multiply costs. Surely, our political leaders and top energy gurus are fully aware of these things, and would not try to mislead the public about the cost of electricity from a predominantly wind/solar system.

……………..

Nobody would be happier than me to see a demonstration project built that showed that wind and solar could provide reliable electricity at low cost. Unfortunately, I know too much about the subject to think that that is likely, or even remotely possible. But at least the rest of us need to demand a demonstration project from the promoters of these fantasies.

A few days ago Menton followed up on his February post with What Passes For A “Demonstration Project” Among Our Government Geniuses.  I recommend readers check out both articles.  I will summarize the key points from the more recent article here.

Menton describes people who don’t support the need for an encompassing fossil-fuel-free renewable grid demonstration project.  Government officials and green energy advocates won’t support this because:

(1) they are not bright enough to understand the subject, or (2) their understanding is impaired because they are too blinded by religious fervor to “save the planet,” or (3) they are intentionally deceiving the public to make money or fame or career advancement for themselves. Or it could be all three!

Instead of a single comprehensive demonstration, net-zero proponents promote projects that only “attempt to demonstrate various portions of the full system that would be needed to provide reliable 24/7/365 electricity from predominantly wind and solar generation.”  I believe a common problem of all the “green” energy solutions is that they do not work all the time and renewable resource availability is correlated over large distances which makes demonstrations of individual components worthless.

Menton agrees and describes the example of the latest news on energy storage. He explain that on October 13, the Department of Energy announced big new grants and subsidies for a series of what they call “hydrogen hubs.” Here is a report from E&E News Energy Wire. Excerpt:

The Department of Energy on Friday announced seven projects that will receive $7 billion to build landmark hydrogen hubs, delivering a major boost to a nascent U.S. industry. The long-awaited move is a key piece of the Biden administration’s climate agenda. On Friday, the White House said it expects the DOE funding to help cut 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, roughly equivalent to removing 5.5 million gasoline-powered vehicles from the road each year. “With this historic investment, the Biden-Harris administration is laying the foundation for a new, American-led industry that will propel the global clean energy transition,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm.

The New York placeholder for dispatchable emissions-free resources is “green” hydrogen.  Menton explains that according to this further piece from Energy Wire on August 21, the Biden Administration has set a goal of having the U.S. produce 10 million metric tons of “green” hydrogen (by electrolysis from water) by 2030. The E&E piece states that the massive funding for “hydrogen hubs” is for “demonstrations.”  He points out that this is not the demonstration project needed to prove viability of the net-zero transition because the demonstrations focus on production, storage, transport and consumption but not the integrated resource necessary.  He notes:

They are clearly leaving out the critical piece of the puzzle, which is the demonstration of how much of this hydrogen, and capacity to make more of it, will be needed, and at what cost, to get the country — or even some small town — through a full year (or two or five) without need for fossil fuel backup. That completely obvious elephant is not part of this multi-billion dollar “demonstration.”

Another dispatchable emissions-free resource for New York’s net-zero transition could be long duration energy storage. Menton notes that the Department of Energy has a “separate big bucks effort called the “Long Duration Storage Shot” that is throwing bucketsful of cash at various research efforts into batteries.”  Unfortunately, he notes:

The battery efforts are even farther removed from any relevant demonstration project. From DOE’s opening webpage describing that initiative (with a date of September 2021):

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Earthshots Initiative aims to accelerate breakthroughs of more abundant, affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions within the decade. Achieving the Energy Earthshots will help America tackle the toughest remaining barriers to addressing the climate crisis, and more quickly reach the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 while creating good-paying union jobs and growing the clean energy economy. . . . The Long Duration Storage Shot establishes a target to reduce the cost of grid-scale energy storage by 90% for systems that deliver 10+ hours of duration within the decade.

On September 22, 2023 the Administration announced some $325 million for “15 projects across 17 states and one tribal nation” to “accelerate the development” of these “long duration” battery technologies. He writes:

So are these battery technologies, or any one of them, even a potential solution to the problem of making a mostly wind/solar electricity grid work without fossil fuel backup? Again, you will not find any mention at those links, or at other government or advocate sites discussing the issue of how many of these batteries would be necessary and at what cost to actually fully back up a predominantly wind/solar grid and make it into a functional 24/7/365 electricity system.

I cannot over-emphasize how challenging these two technologies are.  I fear that some aspects of some of these demonstrations will be deemed a success which will be used to argue that the concerns of  organizations responsible for keeping the lights on and skeptical technical experts who have no vested interests in the green energy scam are unwarranted.  Theory, small prototype tests, and these demonstration projects all will not prove the feasibility of a fully-functioning wind/solar/hydrogen storage 24/7/365 electricity grid.

Another aspect of this is that until we have a proof-of-concept demonstration that incorporates all the components needed to get to a reliable system, we cannot know how much it will cost.  Menton argues that a rough cost estimate  “would come to a multiple (not necessarily a huge one, but nonetheless a multiple) of what our current electricity system costs.”  He does not bother to make an estimate writing:

The reason I’m not going to do it is that there as an obvious fact that tells you all you need to know, which is that no one in the country is spending their own private money to build out this system. They are all waiting for the government handouts. If this system could be built profitably at a cost competitive with what we have, there would be investors falling all over themselves to build it. When Thomas Edison built his first electricity plant, he did not go to the government for handouts to build it.  Because this is all a fantasy kept alive by government handouts, as soon as the handouts go away or even slow down, the whole thing will dry up and fade away.

Conclusion

We do not know if the net-zero transition is technically possible.  All we have is assurances from vested interests and slick marketing claims from the state.  Richard Feynman said “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”  Before New York goes any further, a comprehensive demonstration project for a smaller jurisdiction is the pragmatic approach.

A recent article by Ed Reid prompted me to put together this post.  Reid compared different Offshore Wind (OSW) developer estimates of the capacity factor of a couple of projects and found inconsistencies.  This article compares his results with Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) OSW projections.  I also address energy storage implications associated with OSW.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 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 by increasing costs unacceptably, threatening electric system reliability, and causing significant unintended environmental impacts.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of the New York State Reliability Council, the Extreme Weather Working Group, any of my previous employers or any other organization 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.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. 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 using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the 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. 

Off Shore Wind (OSW) is supposed to be a major renewable resource in the “zero-emissions” electric energy system.  The Climate Act mandates 9,000 MW of Off Shore Wind (OSW) generating capacity by 2035.  The Integration Analysis modeling used to develop the Scoping Plan projects OSW capacity at 6,200 MW by 2030, 9,096 MW by 2035 and reaches 14,364 MW in 2040.  On the other hand, the New York Independent System Operator 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook expects 5,036 MW in 2030 and 9,000 MW in 2035 with no additional development after that.  By 2030 the Integration Analysis predicts that 14% of the electric energy (GWh) produced will come from OSW and the Resource Outlook predicts nearly as much (12%).  This is an extraordinary build-out for a resource that is currently non-existent. 

Capacity Factors

The capacity factor is a useful metric to understand and compare electric generation resources.  The annual capacity factor equals the actual observed generation (MWh) divided by maximum possible generation (capacity (MW) times 8,760 hours.  At sea the wind resource higher capacity factors are higher than onshore wind resources, primarily because there are no hills and vegetation to slow down wind.  Supporters of OSW tout the higher capacity factors of this resource as a big benefit. 

Ed Reid writing at The Right Insight describes issues with Offshore Wind (OSW) data used for claiming benefits.  Reid described developer claims for two projects:

Orsted’s recently approved Ocean Wind 1 development, to be located off the New Jersey coast near Atlantic City and Ocean City, would consist of one hundred 11MW wind turbine generators, for a total capacity of 1,100 MW. This would suggest annual generation, at a 100% capacity factor, of 9,600 GWh. The International Energy Agency uses a capacity factor of 50% for offshore wind. We will use that figure here, since there is no offshore wind capacity factor data for the US East Coast. This suggests annual production of approximately 4,800 GWh for Ocean Wind 1.

……………………..

Dominion Energy’s proposed Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) development, to be located off the Virginia coast near Norfolk, would consist of one hundred seventy-six 15 MW wind turbine generators, for a total capacity of 2,600 MW. This would suggest annual generation, at a 100% capacity factor, of approximately 22,800 GWh, or approximately 11,400 GWh at a 50% capacity factor.

The US Energy Information Administration reports average US residential electricity consumption as 10,600 kWh per year.  The developers describe the output of their projects in terms of the number of homes served. Reid estimates capacity factors for both projects using that information. Orsted projects that Ocean Wind 1 would serve 500,000 homes. Based on these numbers, Ocean wind would have to generate 5300 GWh per year, or a capacity factor of approximately 55%. Dominion projects that CVOW would serve 660,000 homes. Using the same approach, the annual capacity factor of the Dominium CVOW would be 30%.  Thar is far lower than the IEA figure.

I compared the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook  modeling analysis with the Integration Analysis modeling and determined the capacity factors used.  The following table lists the capacity factors for different generating resources including offshore wind.  There is no question that OSW resources have higher capacity factors than onshore wind or solar. The NYISO annual projections are around 45% while the Integration Analysis projects slightly higher estimates no greater than 48%  These estimates are closer to the International Energy Agency capacity factor of 50% than either Ocean 1 or CVOW.  Note that the renewable resources capacity factors represent the best they can do but that the fossil capacity factor is low because, in part, they are displaced by wind and solar.  

Estimates and Averages

Reid describes average estimates used for the OSW developer claims:

The estimates above are based on a number of averages: average wind resource; average capacity factor; average maintenance and repair allowances; and, average residential electricity consumption. The available wind resource varies on time scales from minutes to hours to days to seasons, as does residential energy consumption and demand. The use of averages loses a lot of the detail of the match between customer load and generator output.

He explains that intermittent generation from wind turbines shifts the resources used in the grid:

Since each of these industrial wind installations would be connected to a grid with a far larger customer base than the claimed number of residential customers served, above average output would be absorbed by other loads on the grids, displacing a portion of the output from some form(s) of conventional generation. Below average generator output would require support from some form(s) of conventional generation.

In my opinion, the intermittency of wind and solar projects should be addressed by the developer.  As it stands now somebody else must provide supporting conventional generation or energy storage so wind and solar get a free ride.  Reid explains the problem:

Arguably, fluctuations in generator output and customer load could also be compensated for by additions to and withdrawals from some type of energy storage capacity. However, there is no energy storage capacity included in either of the wind projects discussed above. The issue of storage can be deferred as long as there is sufficient excess conventional generating capacity available to compensate for the fluctuation of the output of the wind facilities and maintain a capacity reserve margin. However, as conventional generating capacity is retired due to age or regulation, and additional intermittent renewable generating capacity is added, addressing the issue of storage cannot be avoided.

Extremes

All issues related to the net-zero transition are more complicated than expected at first glance.  In order to address this complexity, more explanation and analysis are required.  For example, in this instance Reid wrote a short article addressing average fluctuating wind resources.  He did not call out the extreme case when the wind resource is essentially zero for extended periods probably because it would have made the story too long.  However, I think this is a critical consideration.  Since the beginning of the Climate Act implementation process, lulls of renewable energy production, what I call the ultimate problem, has been a concern.

In their presentation to the Power Generation Advisory Panel on September 16, 2020 Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) noted that: “The need for dispatchable resources is most pronounced during winter periods of high demand for electrified heating and transportation and lower wind and solar output”.  They also noted that: “As the share of intermittent resources like wind and solar grows substantially, some studies suggest that complementing with firm, zero emission resources, such as bioenergy, synthesized fuels such as hydrogen, hydropower, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear generation could provide a number of benefits.”  Of particular interest is the graph of electric load and renewable generation because it shows that this problem may extend over multiple days.

Since the time of this presentation, the New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO), New York State Reliability Council, and Public Service Commission in the Order Initiating Process Regarding Zero Emissions Target in Case 15-E-0302 all have been considering the ramifications of this problem.  The New York State Reliability Council Extreme Weather Working Group (EWWG) was established to “identify actions to preserve New York Control Area reliability for extreme weather events and other extreme

system conditions” and create a corresponding action plan to “evaluate the potential need for

new resource adequacy and transmission planning design rules for planning the system to meet

extreme weather and other extreme conditions.”  Wind lulls are one of the extreme weather events being considered by the EWWG.

The EWWG looked at the observed correlation of the frequency and duration of low-wind episodes across the entire state, including the offshore wind development areas.  This summer they finalized a report titled Off Shore Wind Data Review – NYSRC Preliminary Findings (“OSW Report”) that is relevant to this discussion.  The OSW Report analysis was based on an NYISO analysis that made available 21 years of hourly wind data at seven wind development sites (Figure 1), extending from New Jersey to Rhode Island, prepared by its consultant DNV. DNV performed analysis of wind data translating meteorological data into detailed power profiles for each site including loss considerations.  The report describes frequency analysis and interregional impacts.

Figure 1: Seven Wind Development Sites Analyzed

The OSW Report wind lull analysis is relevant to this discussion.  The analysis defined wind lulls as periods of each hour of wind output of less than 5%-20%.  For extended periods of 24 hours or longer, lulls occur about 30 times per year on average. Wind lulls of 48 hours or longer occur on average about seven times per year, and wind lulls of 72 hours or longer occur on average two times per year.  About 70% of these wind lulls over the 21-year period occurred during the current peak load four-month summer period from June to September.

Of note, is the following finding:

Lastly an analysis was performed to identify the most persistent wind lull experienced in the 20-year wind data with net capacity factor less than 10% for the entire period across all seven wind sites. Analysis indicates wind lulls of up to 86 hours with an average energy output of approximately 5% net capacity factor occurring across all seven sites were observed in the DNV dataset (this compares to an average annual net capacity factor of approximately 45%). While data associated with longer periods than 21 years were not readily available it may be appropriate to characterize this as a 1 in 20 year extreme weather event.

Reid explained that compensating load can be provided by adjoining transmission operators.  This report addresses this concern relative to the OSW resource:

NY relies on emergency assistance from neighboring regions to achieve reliable system design, thus continued availability of surplus power from these areas is an important consideration. Similar to NY, policy makers from PJM and New England are also moving forward with policies to install large scale wind power to address decarbonization and planned shutdown of thermal units, with proposals in each region also totaling tens of thousands of MW. As noted in Section 3.0, OSW off the coast of the state of New Jersey is targeted at 7.5 GW by 2035 increasing to 11.0 GW by 2040, and similarly OSW off the coast of Rhode Island/ Massachusetts is targeted at 8.0 GW by 2035. In total PJM member States have announced off shore wind targets totaling 24 GW by 2035, and 32.7 GW by 2040.

The OSW Report compares the output from all seven wind sites during an interregional wind lull event which occurred August 8, 2017 – August 13, 2017.  Over that time period the following graph shows that the fraction of wind output from all the sites clearly correlates.  The implication is that compensating load will not be available from adjoining transmission operator’s OSW resources in periods like this.

The OSW Report concludes:

It is noted reliability of the traditional interconnected power system design relies on diversity of forced outage rates and independence of outage events. Correlation of interregional wind lulls eliminates diversity of loss of power output events associated with OSW and alters this aspect of system design.

Interregional wind lulls simultaneously impacting tens of thousands of MWs of interregional OSW located in PJM, NY and NE could reduce reserve sharing and emergency assistance available for support from neighboring control areas significantly impacting operational reliability and resource adequacy.

The most important point of this article is that the OSW Report documents correlation of interregional wind lulls.  I believe this problem extends to onshore and wind and solar resources.  I have looked at enough New York onshore wind data to be certain that this correlation extends to all the onshore wind resources in New York and adjoining regions.  When it comes to solar, cloudiness affecting New York State solar may not be as highly correlated with wind but at night every single solar facility will not be producing any power. 

One of the challenges faced by the EWWG is trying to determine the worst-case renewable resource lull.  NYISO has had DNV do a similar analysis for onshore wind and solar resources in New York using the same 21-year data set.  Metrological experts on the EWWG have suggested using as long an input meteorological dataset as possible for an analysis to obtain a fuller understanding of range and return period of events. 

Finally, there is one more complication.  The meteorological conditions that lead to the lowest wind resource availability are associated with the coldest and hottest periods of the year.  Those periods cause the peak annual loads.  Wind and solar may provide power most of the time but when electricity is needed the most, they are expected to provide their lowest output.  I think this is an enormous challenge to the proposed “zero-emissions” electric grid that can only be addressed by using nuclear power.

Energy Storage Implications

To always provide reliable electricity, energy storage is needed to cover periods when solar and wind are not available.  Obviously, energy storage is needed to cover the daily variation of solar.  Energy storage duration is not a large issue for this requirement.  On the other hand, there is a seasonal variation of solar irradiance and resulting power output that needs a long-duration storage solution.   There are no commercially available long-duration storage systems that can be expanded to meet New York’s requirements.  There are also seasonal variations in wind resource availability that require a long duration system.  The biggest problem is the worst-case renewable resource lull.  The EWWG analysis found a one in twenty-year resource deficiency which is something that no long-duration storage system could ever effectively address. 

There are serious energy storage technological hurdles that have not been resolved.  Francis Menton writing at the Manhattan Contrarian summarizes energy storage problems in a recent post on a new British Royal Society report “Large-scale energy storage.”  Menton explains (my emphasis added):

Having now put some time into studying this Report, I would characterize it as semi-competent. That is an enormous improvement over every other effort on this subject that I have seen from green energy advocates. But despite their promising start, the authors come nowhere near a sufficient showing that wind plus solar plus storage can make a viable and cost-effective electricity system. In the end, their quasi-religious commitment to a fossil-fuel-free future leads them to minimize and divert attention away from critical cost and feasibility issues. As a result, the Report, despite containing much valuable information, is actually useless for any public policy purpose.

As noted previously wind and solar resources will be at their lowest expected availability during periods when the electric load peaks.  When heating and transportation is electrified this problem is exacerbated, peak loads will occur in the winter when solar resources are inherently low.  The Scoping Plan glossed over this challenge and nothing since directly addresses the challenge.  The rational thing to do would be to develop demonstration projects to prove feasibility and cost of the new technology needed before dismantling the current system.  Francis Menton explains why this is necessary and how it could work. 

Conclusion

Ed Reid explains how OSW developers describe the output of their projects in terms of the number of homes served.  He found issues with their calculations.  The developers ignore the support needed to provide electricity to the homes served when the wind isn’t blowing.

Supporters of OSW tout the higher capacity factors of this resource as a big benefit.  Ed Reid describes deficiencies in their arguments using average data.  This article explains that the problem becomes more acute when shorter-term extended renewable resource lulls are considered.  OSW will perform better than other renewable resources during periods when the energy is not critically needed. The conundrum is that when it is needed most,  OSW will fail at the same time New York’s onshore wind resources fail so an as yet commercially unavailable energy storage technology is needed.  All indications are that this problem extends into the adjoining control areas so they cannot be counted on.  Addressing this issue is a critical reliability consideration.  If not addressed correctly then the grid will fail when needed most and people will freeze to death in the dark.