NY State Passes Greenest Fantasy EVER!

HT/Clarice Feldman

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 19, 2019 8:17 pm

I really doubt the New York legislature can even pronounce Energiewende, let alone that they have studied the outcome of a similar German program to “go green”.

June 19, 2019 8:24 pm

They couldn’t even get 30% renewable energy by 2015 and fought a needed redundant transmission line that would take less strain off the existing grid.
Yes, the same people who are for wind and solar farms protested against the ability to send the power generated. Idiots.

June 19, 2019 8:52 pm

Politcians can virtue signal, legislate and set any targets they like. Reality remains reality , so their stupidity and disconnect from the real world will become increasingly evident. They appear to have learnt npthing from California.

Reply to  yarpos
June 20, 2019 7:42 am

Oh contraire, it seems they have learned that CA is getting all the attention for its virtue posturing and NY feels slighted. They ‘learned’ they needed more attention grabbing headlines.
CA and NY are behaving like two adolescents showing off to attract attention, each committing evermore ridiculous acts, until calamity strikes.
Unfortunately these juvenile acts are being committed with the knowledge that it is the taxpayers and citizens who will pay the price for this.

Javert Chip
June 19, 2019 9:08 pm

With wealthy (read: pay lots & lots of NY state & various city taxes) people moving out, looks like millennial SJWs will have to step up and do the heavy lifting to save civilization.

Maybe when they get the bills and S-L-O-W-L-Y realize this is a scam, they’ll say “the hell with it, let’s go tar-and-feather some politicians”

June 19, 2019 9:12 pm

Is this supposed to reference something? There’s no link to anything, just a tweet. Must be an inside joke.

Reply to  STRICQ
June 20, 2019 12:44 am

There’s a link to the NYTimes article referenced in the tweet. Would help the WUWT article if that link were posted near the end.


Reply to  Schitzree
June 20, 2019 6:50 am

I’m OK with the WUWT summary. I have no urge to give the NYT a click to help with their ad revenue

Reply to  STRICQ
June 20, 2019 5:23 am

I like to read the articles on WUWT. Twitter or tweets are not even considered.

Dave Fair
June 19, 2019 9:17 pm

Other states on the grid should charge NY for supporting generation: Spinning reserves, operating reserves, frequency control, voltage stability, etc.

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 20, 2019 9:08 am

Or just cut off their power.

June 19, 2019 9:18 pm

It’s become a one-upmanship for the stupid. New York can’t let California be the leader in virtue signaling their intent to do away with fossil fuels. Sadly there are people in both states that truly believe wind and solar can provide reliable grid electricity for homes, businesses, and industries 24X7. And some of those people are the politicians making the decisions. They must believe batteries can save the day otherwise it’s hard to know there are people that can’t fathom sunset or windless periods. This is bizarro world.

June 19, 2019 9:26 pm

What percent of global CO2 emissions does NY State produce?
It looks like NY State will continue to loose population.
I guess that’s good.

Reply to  Joel
June 20, 2019 6:00 am

Alarmists like to talk about the concept of a “tipping point”. That’s the problem with the NY exodus.
Those that are currently paying for this (and other foolishness) and have mobility (especially retirees) are leaving – like I did.
At the other end of the economic spectrum the foolishness includes ever expanding definitions of who should be the recipients of state largess (that now includes illegal aliens).
That leaves the younger less mobile (lower savings, family and job commitments etc) wage earners holding the bag and paying the tab. (E.g. my 3 boys and their families.)
At some point the system necessarily will collapse. Those jobs will be gone and New York State will become the New Welfare State.
I fear that eventually the Progressives will capture Federal leadership again and will repeat the cycle at a national level; first asking the economically healthy states to bail out California, NY, NJ, Illinois et al; but this time the productive wage earners will have no place to go.
Who is John Galt?

Reply to  George Daddis
June 20, 2019 7:04 am

“first asking the economically healthy states”

Government doesn’t “ask” people to help, it forces them to help. If you disagree, men with guns will show up on your doorstep.

Reply to  George Daddis
June 20, 2019 8:12 am

My Three Sons, great show.

Different time, different reality. Make America Great Again! Civil, kind, conscientious, etc. A show about doing the right thing, not the LEFTIST thing.

Hope your boys can escape the leftist hell hole NY is becoming.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel
June 20, 2019 6:19 am

“It looks like NY State will continue to loose population.”

They’ve already loosed their population on the rest of the country, repeatedly.

Oh, you meant “lose”.

June 19, 2019 9:40 pm

How long has the solar / wind boondoggle been operating now – 30 years? 40 years?

And still, after all this time of undelivered promises, without coal / gas fueled electricity, we’d all be trying to get by on a ration of about an hour of electricity time per day.

Reality is what rational people live by. Illusion is what grid-scale base load renewable power proponents live by.

Reply to  Mr.
June 20, 2019 12:41 am

At LEAST 40 years. I remember Popular Science articles from the 70’s that talked up how Wind Power was going to revolutionize electricity generation.


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Schitzree
June 20, 2019 6:20 am

Same Popular Science that said we’d have flying cars, humanoid robots in every home, and be living on Mars by 2000?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 20, 2019 7:48 am

It’s a very good thing we have delayed creation of flying cars.
Most people cannot drive and navigate in 2 dimensions.
It would be very unwise to give them 3.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
June 20, 2019 8:25 am

Yeah, but on a less grand scale, I am still waiting for the ceramic car engines they promised were just around the corner in 1978. Also maglev launches of satellites, and moon supplies into space.

Reply to  Schitzree
June 20, 2019 9:11 am

One of my earliest science projects was a solar water heater, some 40 years ago. I used a water pick as the pump and 100 watt incandescent bulb as the heat source. Today, this is still be the only type of renewable energy system I would install on my house.


Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mr.
June 20, 2019 3:48 am

“When was electricity first used in wind?

The wind is also used by a wind turbine to make electricity. According to the on-line Illustrated History of Wind Power Development, the first use of a large windmill to generate electricity was a system built in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1888 by Charles F. Brush.”


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
June 20, 2019 6:27 am

Electric cars also once outnumbered ICE powered vehicles.

Bryan A
June 19, 2019 9:58 pm

Apparently the Green Governor of NY doesn’t realize that Just to power Manhattan (NY, NY) from solar (homes, business, transportation, etc..) all electric and allow for battery storage recharging energy production would require a space the size of Connecticut covered in Solar Panels. Just 1 city in that state.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Bryan A
June 19, 2019 10:53 pm

The idea of solar panels and industrial wind turbines sounds beautiful, sounds like it could save us from bad weather and the usual “end of the world” prophecy.
The problem is that the engineers behind the grid design are never spoken or listened to. They might tell bad stories, like reactive current for asynchronous generators, difficulties with frequency stabilization, astronomical footprint (as Bryan point out), thickening and expansion of the grid at all levels and finally increased cost and resource use.
So apparently it is in NY, as it is in so many big cities: Say something Green to stay elected or popular. Have the electricity merchants tell you that you are offered 100% Green electricity to your home – I guess there is a physical parallel Green grid? – does not matter, just say Green things.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
June 20, 2019 6:48 am

Friis-Hansen: Exactly what I have been saying for some time now. State politicians in NY, California and the other states should be listening to physicists and engineers, not environmental activists. How much background in physics and engineering do the environmental activists have? Little or none I would guess.

I don’t know if this is incredible stupidity or just blind pandering on the part of the states’ politicians. Probably some of both. I have seen a number of studies that conclude that the money and other resources (land, raw materials) required to get wind turbines and solar panels to scale up
against fossil fuels and nuclear power in mind-boggling and beyond rational.

And all of this is happening because of blind, unquestioning belief in a CAGW theory that has considerable scientific evidence to shoot it down. Sigh……

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2019 6:17 am

But he is “smart” enough to close Indian Point nuclear which provides 25% of our power CO2 free in two more years. Florida, here I come.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
June 20, 2019 10:42 am

Florida is Great, just build your house out of Concrete and above the flood stage height.
And, if you make it semi spherical, Hurricanes and Tornados will have no effect.

June 19, 2019 10:05 pm

Global significant economies such as the United States of America, China, etc., are pulling the socks to curb the harmful carbon dioxide emission and Australia is also started giving its contribution regarding Global Warming.
Many start-ups with different techniques are tapping in the DAC market and One such example of a start-up is Microsoft Co-founder Bill Gates-backed Carbon Engineering. DAC Technology to pull the carbon dioxide out of the air is not new; however; the high cost of building the technology is a challenge for it.
Read the full article here: http://bit.ly/2IWvKT9

Reply to  John Smith
June 20, 2019 12:56 am

This is a bot, and it’s link leads to one of those ‘investment’ scam sites.
DON’T give them your personal info unless you want to sign up for a lifetime of spam and telemarketing calls.


David Chappell
Reply to  Schitzree
June 20, 2019 1:44 am

and there’s a clue that it’s a troll: …to curb the harmful carbon dioxide emission…”

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  John Smith
June 20, 2019 2:05 am

John Smith,
re: Taking CO2 from the air-
Do not even bother to give thinking time to this idea.
Competent engineers and scientists (chemists in particular) have known for decades to centuries that the energetics are so unfavourable that any new proposal starts with a high probability that the energy required to recover the CO2 is much larger than the energy donated by the process that created the CO2 in the first instance.
There is a small but finite possibility that a process does exist, one that gives a positive, beneficial energy balance. It might involve difficult mechanisms like catalysis or bioengineering using specific molecules not yet discovered. So, given the enormity of scale of CO2, some effort ought to be put into these (rare) possibilities.
The worst way to approach this scientific question is to make major economic assumptions that a global solution will one day be found; and to make global plans assuming that the solution is imminent, assured and economically favourable. Dreamtime assumptions like these are severe impediments to the steady and logical progress of good science.
Unfortunately, current society in USA, EU, Australia and the like is swamped by the bleating words of a host of ignorant people who assign themselves underserved intelligence. Oh that we could, for example, require mass media writers to sit for tests of competence in science and economics. Unbridled ignorance is making the normal work of valualble people bog down and be distorted to answer nonsense questions along the way.
Like questions about CO2 recovery. Geoff

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2019 6:59 am

Nature invented a perfect way to remove CO2 from the air – photosynthesis. Unfortunately scientists have been unable to improve upon that invention.

Gunga Din
Reply to  OweninGA
June 20, 2019 10:07 am

I’d say “fortunately”.
“Nature’s” way provides food and resources.
The Green’s way would provide nothing but the warm fuzzies until reality hits. 😎

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 20, 2019 3:19 pm

The nice part about nature’s way is if you need the CO2 back, you can always burn the product.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2019 9:10 am

I would guess that any real attempt to do this would involve pools of fast growing algae or possibly bacteria. When they are done doing their thing, dry them out and bury them (sequester them) then start again with a new batch.

Why we would do this, when it seems like humanity was put on the earth to save the planet from carbon depletion is beyond me.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2019 12:56 pm

Carbon capture and sequestration has been a required evaluation tool in new CO2 permits since they were introduced. The cost-benefit analysis is so lopsided that this is widely considered a joke that turned into a subsidy to permitting consulting firms.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2019 2:36 pm

There is a small but finite possibility that a process does exist, one that gives a positive, beneficial energy balance. It might involve difficult mechanisms like catalysis or bioengineering using specific molecules not yet discovered. So, given the enormity of scale of CO2, some effort ought to be put into these (rare) possibilities.

That doesn’t make much sense to me, Geoff.

First of all, it would not benefit us to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, so it cannot be worth spending resources on research. Every carbon sequestration process currently being implemented requires energy input, even if that energy comes from unreliables such as pv or wind.

If you’re implying that there could be a way to extract energy while extracting CO2 into a fuel, that only works if there is a “free” source of energy that we can’t use directly. (That already exists of course, with well-known biochemical molecules—in photosynthesis). The carbon cycle is an engine for capturing solar power to produce chemical fuels.

I guess that it’s not absolutely impossible that we could engineer a cheaper way to create fuels from sunlight than the process that trees already use, but I doubt it. Trees are self-replicating and require no engineering. Even fusion power seems like a more promising technology for research funding than artificial photosynthesis.

Any process that captures solar power is inherently limited by the solar flux. There’s only so much energy striking a given area in a given time. Modern society needs energy sources that are more concentrated and also more reliable. And we have them—coal, oil, natural gas, uranium. Why do we need a new unreliable process while we still have centuries of commercially-extractible fuels like these?

June 19, 2019 10:29 pm

I remember a famous episode when Milton Friedman was visiting China, and the official conducting his tour took him out to a canal building project which thousands of Chinese workers were digging with shovels. The official pointed out to Friedman, “Look how many jobs we can create by not using expensive western machinery!!!”

to which Friedman replied, “well if Jobs are your goal, why aren’t they digging with teaspoons?”

Flight Level
Reply to  wws
June 20, 2019 12:16 am

+ 1’000

Once, scientific papers were redacted on typewriters in 5 carbon copies, formulas & figures were inked 5 times on separate sheets, cut and glued on the purposely left spaces.

No backspace, delete, copy, paste.

And there were significantly less global warming scare papers, studies, publications.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  wws
June 20, 2019 4:18 am

A dilemma since Heron :

Machines or employment / slavery.


John Endicott
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
June 20, 2019 9:19 am

Johann, nobody cares about your google searches (as I know you’ve been told before) *AT ALL*. everyone here is capable of doing their own searches (using the search engine of their choice). If you have a specific article you want people to see, link that, otherwise knock it off with the useless google searches links.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  wws
June 20, 2019 6:57 am

A story also attributed to Keynes and India.

June 19, 2019 11:19 pm

What’s the fracking craziness with NY State???

Reply to  Jon P Peterson
June 20, 2019 6:52 am

Fracking. They aren’t doing any fracking in NY…sitting on one of the largest shale gas deposits in the world. Laws were passed forbidding natural gas extraction by fracking.

More evidence of NY Statewide insanity. Forbidding activity that would bring 10’s of $Billions in tax revenues anually (and far more landowner wealth)… and then wasting funds on worthless resource-sucking renewables.

There are ACTUAL problems in NY to spend money on…normally you’d see resistance from other causes in need of funding. Where are they? Who couldn’t use a few $Billion?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  DocSiders
June 20, 2019 5:53 pm

Well, depending on the location of the deposits, I see a lot of horizontal drilling originating in Pennsylvania headed northward. Just sayin’.

June 19, 2019 11:46 pm

This is just trolling for votes. Kick the can down the road, and remember
that the politician will be on his/ her nice fat pension long before that date.

Probably in a more sensible State.

Its a great pity that the utilities cannot just cut off the fossil fuel
generators to New York. They need a big dose of reality.


Another Ian
Reply to  Michael
June 20, 2019 1:17 am

Good idea. Give the UN a good dose of its own medicine too.

Johann Wundersamer
June 20, 2019 3:52 am

“When was electricity first used in wind?

The wind is also used by a wind turbine to make electricity. According to the on-line Illustrated History of Wind Power Development, the first use of a large windmill to generate electricity was a system built in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1888 by Charles F. Brush.”


Says: since Cleveland, Ohio, in 1888 there’s experience in wind power – that never went viral economical.

Johann Wundersamer
June 20, 2019 3:54 am


Albert H Brand
June 20, 2019 4:50 am

One of the great advantages of leaving resources in the ground is they will always be available later when one needs them as opposed to destroying a power plant which would need to to be replaced at much greater cost. New York will be able to frack and use its own resources once this becomes necessary. New Yorkers may be dumb but they are not entirely stupid, at least I hope not.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
June 20, 2019 5:31 am

Dream on. New York couldn’t frack its way out of a paper bag. It would take at least 5 years for any oil and gas companies insane enough to do business in New York to make any meaningful difference in the supply of natural gas to the state. And of course the state has shown it will also actively oppose the building of the pipelines necessary to support any gas wells drilled.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  GeoNC
June 20, 2019 6:59 am

Yet the irony is that closure of Indian Point Nuclear Plant will be replaced by two large gas-fired plants.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Albert H Brand
June 20, 2019 6:16 am

They are forgoing the wealth that could be generated currently. It has less present value if they demand it be left for a generation or two. This is a case of wealthy New Yorkers demanding that poorer people in the hinterlands curb wealth generation.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
June 20, 2019 6:21 am

Most New Yorkers are not stupid; but NYS politicians certainly are; and there is plenty of hard data to back up that conclusion!

Reply to  George Daddis
June 20, 2019 7:09 am

If they are so smart, why do they keep voting for such dumb politicians?

Richard Patton
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2019 1:17 pm


Kevin kilty
June 20, 2019 6:27 am

The explanation for this is that Democrats now dominate both the state Senate and Assembly in New York State. Expect more and greater craziness. They are competing with California. Note their new tightened regulation of rental properties which they imposed not just on NYC, but other parts of the state. The Manhattan Contrarian has two articles about this recently.

June 20, 2019 7:03 am

If I were the states to the northeast of NY, I’d be pulling out of the interstate compact on energy with NY and forming a new one without them. This is insanity that they need to experience the FULL PAIN for. It is said that wisdom is found through painful experience, and NYC fully blacked out every night might just be the pain that delivers it.

Reply to  OweninGA
June 20, 2019 8:55 am

Particularly since Cuomo blocked the construction of new gas pipelines across New York to get fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New England.

New England has the highest natural gas prices because the pipeline that brings natural gas into New England is at capacity. In winter the pipeline can’t provide the gas needed and it has to be imported from Yemen at many times the cost of domestic natural gas.

Reply to  DCE
June 20, 2019 3:24 pm

I wonder if there is a way to lay an underwater pipeline from New Jersey to Connecticut and cut out the blamed NY crew. The voters in Vermont didn’t vote for this (though they may if you put it before them). The northeast is nearly a lost cause. Maybe Pennsylvania and points south can separate the grid and leave NY out of it.

June 20, 2019 7:03 am

In economics this is known as the “Broken Window Fallacy.”

Joel Snider
June 20, 2019 9:28 am

‘Of course, re-painting my house each summer would create jobs, but it makes no economic sense’

It amazes me the number of people who don’t get that ‘make-work’ jobs with no productive value is a net drain on the economy.

Wiliam Haas
June 20, 2019 2:09 pm

If they are really serious about this, they first need to build enough nuclear power plants to meet all energy needs in New York state. They then need to convert as much as possible to run on electricity. Wind and solar does not come close to meeting their needs for reliable power generation. Since the state is coming up with this new law the state needs to pay for everything. Do they know how much it will cost and where they are going to get the money to pay for it all. For those that believe in a radiant greenhouse effect, even if they succeed in their efforts to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels in New York state it will do very little to change the over all radiant greenhouse effect in the state which is dominated by H2O and they are doing nothing to reduce H2O emissions in the state. Their efforts will have no effect on climate. They would be much better off taking action to improve the economy of the state rather then passing laws that are bound to kill the state’s economy.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 22, 2019 8:57 am

Wiliam Haas:
” . . . then passing laws that are bound to kill the state’s economy.”
That is not a bug – it is a feature from your [US] equivalent of our [UK] Labour Party – kill the economy, so the Government can dole out the goodies – to (only) those who deserve!


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights