Reliability Challenges in Meeting New York’s Climate Act Requirements

By Roger Caiazza

On July 18, 2019 former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act “Climate Act”), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  Over the last year recommendations have been developed by panels of politically chosen representatives for consideration for a Scoping Plan to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions economy-wide.   On August 2, 2021, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) held a Reliability Planning Speaker Session that provides some interesting insights regarding reliability planning for electric systems dominated by renewable energy generation.

Background

Reliability planning in New York is prioritized because there is a long history of blackouts in New York State in general and New York City in particular.  After a blackout in July 2019 AMNY published a brief history of blackouts in New York City.  In every case after blackouts in 1959, 1961 1965, 1977, 2003, and 2012 new requirements for infrastructure and operating rules were implemented to prevent future reoccurrences.  Reliability planning is a constant concern for the electrical system professionals who operate the system and are responsible for keeping the lights on.  With all due respect to the professionals who are trying to develop a reliable system that incorporates large amounts of intermittent and diffuse wind and solar generation, the track record for blackouts indicates that historically not all the problems could be anticipated and that retrospective reliability improvements were the norm.

Over the past year the electric system professionals have looked on the Climate Act transition process and recommendations with increasing concern because it is clear that many of the appointed representatives do not understand the particular reliability requirements of New York.  After a year and many comments, the State finally responded with an overview briefing presentation on those requirements to the people who are supposed to guide the transition plan.  The speaker session (recording here) included presentations from six organizations with varying levels of reliability background, experience, and responsibilities:

In a post on my blog I did an overview of all the presentations.  The warning in five of the six presentations was similar: it will not be enough to depend on today’s technology to develop a reliable electric system with net-zero emissions.  A “large quantity of installed dispatchable energy resources is needed in a small number of hours” and it “must be able to come on line quickly, and be flexible enough to meet rapid, steep ramping needs”.  That technology does not exist for utility-scale applications.  Unfortunately, in order to cater to the environmental zealots involved in the process a presentation from Vote Solar who claimed “integrating renewables into the grid while maintaining reliability is possible, and in fact cost effective” was included.  That presentation was based on the report, “Why Local Solar for All Costs Less”, that is fatally flawed because it relies on annual estimates of renewable resource availability and does not address worst case conditions.

NYSRC Presentation

The presentation by the New York State Reliability Council succinctly describes the organization, how the New York electric system is operated to maintain reliability and some of the challenges presented when renewable energy sources are increased significantly.  It was so well done I thought it would be of interest to readers here.

New York’s electric system is de-regulated so reliability planning is provided by the New York Independent System Operator, various state agencies and the NYSRC.  The introduction describes the NYSRC and the Installed Reserve Margin (IRM) parameter.  The IRM is defined as the “minimum installed capacity margin above the estimated peak load to meet the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) requirement that the probability of shedding load is not greater than one day in ten years”.   Load shedding occurs when the demand for electricity exceeds supply and grid operators have to turn power off for groups of customers in order to prevent the whole system from collapsing.  Note that one of the lessons learned from previous blackouts was that New York City has to maintain a significant amount of in-city generation availability to prevent blackouts.  The NYSRC has specific rules in this regard.

The next slide described how the system is operated reliably. Note that in addition to the short-term operation of the system that longer term planning is also required.  In order to address the one in ten-year criteria of the IRM, planning has to address new generation and transmission resource development that can take ten years to get built.

The slide titled “Operating the future system reliably” explained that as the mix of generation resources changes, planning and operations will also have to change.  A point of emphasis is that “Limited fuel diversity and over dependence on energy limited resources is a risk to reliability”.  In the past New York boasted a truly diverse fueled electric system with significant coal, residual oil, natural gas, hydro and nuclear resources.  There were significant resources available from sources that could store fuel on-site and could operate with more than one fuel.  However, the state has banned the use of coal and residual oil has become so expensive that its use has dropped precipitously.  The conclusion in the slide that additional dispatchable and sustainable energy resources to manage the substantially different system in order to maintain reliability refers, in part, to the New York City requirements for in-city capacity.  Presently, for example, that means facilities must be able to burn oil when natural gas is unavailable. 

The next slide (not shown here) re-emphasizes the importance of the IRM which turns out to be a future challenge when there are significant increases in renewable resources.  This is illustrated in the slide titled “Solar impact on resource adequacy”.  The slide shows the diurnal variation of load vs solar generation also known as the “duck curve”.  Typical discussions of the duck curve focus on the operational challenge resulting from the loss of solar generation at the same time the load is high.  This slide addresses the changes in the reserve requirements with the addition of 26,000 MW of new solar generation in New York.  Because of the enormous variation in available energy from solar, adding that amount of solar generation would raise the reserve requirement to approximately 22,000 MW as compared to the current reserve requirement of 6,600 MW.  It also means that the state can only retire 4,000 MW of current resources.

The Climate Act has an electric system target of zero emissions in 2040.  The Department of Public Service (DPS) and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) have made a preliminary estimate of the resources needed to meet that goal as shown below.  The key numbers from this slide are that they expect to need 88,337 MW in 2040 for an expected load of 38,000 MW.  In order to meet that load and with a loss of load expectation no greater than once in ten years the NYSRC estimates that the total reserves will be approximately 50,000 MW.

The presentation observes that the New York reserve margin will have to increase to over 100% relative to the current reserve margin of about 20%.  The estimates of resources needed to meet the Climate Act targets have not incorporated this issue so they under-estimate the resources needed significantly.  In addition, the new technologies have to be zero emissions and meet the characteristics of fossil fuels (dispatchable, fast-ramping, and long duration storage).  The presentation notes that “these resources rely on technologies that do not currently exist for utility-scale applications”.

Conclusions

I recommend reading the session presentation and listening as it gives a good overview of reliability issues facing New York or any other jurisdiction in the transition to net-zero.  One caveat is to not waste your time reading the Vote Solar presentation because it is based on fatally flawed analysis.

There is consensus that the future worst-case situation in New York will be a multi-day winter time wind lull when both wind and solar availabilities are low.  Coupled with increased electricity load in order to reduce emissions from transportation and heating, any analysis of future renewable energy resources that adequately addresses the worst-case renewable energy resource availability shows the required amounts of wind, solar and energy storage will have to be enormous.  Importantly, the NYSRC analysis indicates that in order to ensure reliability the installed reserve margin will have to be added to the total needed to balance anticipated load.  While the focus of the highlighted presentation was New York, I believe that similar problems will become evident at any other jurisdiction that attempts to develop a net zero emissions electricity system. 

The NYSRC conclusion that the state of New York appears to be headed down a transition path which will require reliance on technologies that do not currently exist in less than ten years should be a wake-up call.  The ultimate question is whether the proposed transition plan will address the issues raised by the professionals or cater to the naïve dreams of the politically chosen members of the transition program. I fear New York consumers will be lab rats for a politically motivated virtue signaling empty gesture that is going to cost enormous sums of money, and, in the event of a major blackout, cause much more harm than good.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  He has  written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act because the solutions proposed will adversely affect reliability and affordability, will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change, and cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

5 11 votes
Article Rating
82 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
September 2, 2021 2:19 am

So, when will they be getting rid of the farting cows?

Bryan A
Reply to  fretslider
September 2, 2021 9:38 am

Hmmm.
They need an energy source that produces zero CO2 emissions and zero CH4 emissions…
They need an energy source that is reliable, dispatchable and can be ramped up at a moment’s notice…
They need an energy source that can replace current fossil generation capacity…
They need a miracle energy source that “Hasn’t been invented yet”…

They could call it…
Nu-Clear Energy

Lrp
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2021 1:33 pm

New-clear

Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2021 9:31 pm

Wasn’t it Cuomo who made it a point to kill the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island? You can fix stupid…or arrogant!

Reply to  Walter Keane
September 2, 2021 9:32 pm

“can’t” not “can”…sorry about that.

Reply to  Walter Keane
September 3, 2021 5:42 am

Shoreham was killed before Cuomo but he did kill Indian Point – 2,000 MW

Kevin
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 3, 2021 4:11 pm

Cuomo’s father Mario killed Shoreham.

I see NYS assumes that Ginna, Nine Mile Point and Fitzpatrick will continue to operate until at least 2040.

I believe they can from an engineering safety point but wonder about the political opposition.

Jit
September 2, 2021 2:54 am

15.5 GW of storage = 155 Hornsdales at 100 MW each and capable of running flat out for 1.3 hours. As well as power I think we need to know how much energy is needed to be stored.

The cost of Hornsdale was 90 million AU$ so 155 of them would not be cheap. And as mentioned, they would not hold things up for long.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jit
September 3, 2021 5:07 am

And they might catch on fire and burn for a long time.

Ron Long
September 2, 2021 3:27 am

This “Climate Act” is just one more example of the tendency of New Yorkers to vote for every fruit-loop idea, and the nut jobs to carry them out, and it won’t end well and won’t work. Yesterday and today New York City is being pounded by the remnants of Hurricane/Tropical Depression Ida, and it’s wrecking havoc. We need to wait for later in the day to see how the electric power generating and distribution system holds up, I’m thinking not very well.

starzmom
Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 5:42 am

One thing is clear with the onslaught of the heavy rain–nobody learned anything in Superstorm Sandy about how to keep the subways dry in a flood.

Ron Long
Reply to  starzmom
September 2, 2021 5:58 am

starzmom, right on about subway dry, and in this case also, with power cuts. I ate breakfast with my wife just after commenting above, and told her the power was out in the New York City Subway system and some persons were stranded for more than 6 hours. We were watching CNN International and a CNN reporter was standing in front of a large, illuminated “SUBWAY” sign, so my wife asks me if the power is out how is the subway sign powered? The CNN reporter was in Times Square and the sign was for SUBWAY sandwiches. NYC is going to have a tough few days.

starzmom
Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 7:58 am

I have family living in greater NYC area, both in the city and in the near suburbs. They are nice and smart people, but have no clue where their essential services come from or how they get there, including food. It is no wonder they don’t see any need for change.

They will have a tough few days now, and probably a lot more going forward.

Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 8:15 am

It is amazing that the people writing these laws, rules, and acts whether they be Federal, State or municipal do not have the mental acuity to realize that these “ACTS” are impossible to achieve because of previous “ACTS” they have written, the act itself negates the achievements of other acts and worse, is physically or economically impossible to achieve.

I can only remember a power outage at home, as a child, when there was a nearby thunderstorm and lightning hit a power line, or the occasional car hitting a power pole. I have no memories of spending a day or so with no electricity, using candles and kerosene lanterns to light the house and fires in the fire place to heat the home and cook the food. However today it is becoming a common occurrence. At least three of my neighbors now have emergency generators – can hear them run as soon as the power goes off, And since the plant near me has shut down the problems have increased. I even bought an emergency generator after two multi day outages, not caused by weather, causing the loss of over $500 worth of food. The utility attributed them to switching errors, however the number of short term outages has increased steadily from less that one every few years 20 years ago to at least a one hour outage every other month, average, now that we have “30% of the grid is now powered from Wind/Solar.” [Quoted from the propaganda in my monthly bill,]

I feel sorry for those people living in a “Smart Home” that has all of the “Smart devices” connected to the Wi-Fi that disappears with the loss of power and only lasts about an hour with a dedicated PC UPS for backup power. Also, UPS may keep the Wi-Fi powered but the Internet is also lost on many of these outages. Two expensive Flat screen TVs also “died” after one of these outages. Be thankful if you live in an area that has less than 20% of your service area powered by Unreliables.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Lentz
September 3, 2021 5:14 am

“Two expensive Flat screen TVs also “died” after one of these outages.”

Definitely put your television on a UPS, and your computers. I lost a good TV not long ago by not doing so. One flash of lightning messed it up. It will turn on just fine, but then goes blank in about three seconds. I’ll be taking it to the county electrical waste dump day soon.

I got a bigger TV to replace it, and it’s on a UPS.

2hotel9
September 2, 2021 3:40 am

So, the final conclusion was that NY needs more gas ,coal and nuclear electric generation capacity. Massively more. And the idiots running the system are refusing to accept reality, as usual. THEY will never lose power, or heat, or water. Everyone else will be f**ked and required to pay for the privilege.

H.R.
September 2, 2021 4:40 am

The closer from the article:

“The NYSRC conclusion that the state of New York appears to be headed down a transition path which will require reliance on technologies that do not currently exist in less than ten years should be a wake-up call.”


All of the ‘sustainable’, ‘renewable’, ‘green’, ‘save the planet’ schemes tend to remind me of the cartoon that’s been posted here many times…
comment image

…two scientists at the black board covered with equations with “Then a miracle occurs” in the middle of it all.


Americans in the Northeast, aka Yankees, used to be described as hardnosed and practical. Now we just have a bunch of people who depend on magical thinking.

Reply to  H.R.
September 2, 2021 10:34 am

The obviousness of that was the election The Squad of nitwits and idiots to the House of Representatives.

DD More
Reply to  H.R.
September 2, 2021 12:18 pm

order to maintain reliability refers, in part, to the New York City requirements for in-city capacity. “

Has the amount changed since this?

The independent, non-profit New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) has determined that a minimum of 80 percent of the City’s peak load must be provided by generating sources within the City to maintain compliance with the criteria established by the regional and national reliability councils.

Gonna need a windmill on every high rise in the city.

H.R.
Reply to  DD More
September 2, 2021 12:43 pm

And there’s also gonna be a stationary bike with a generator in every apartment, DD.

“You are required to pedal for 9 hours on odd number days. You will be allowed four 15-minute breaks. Plan your potty breaks accordingly. There is a $5,000 fine for each instance of noncompliance.

Should you be physically unable to provide pedal power, you may apply to be assigned to a team that will provide the counterweight for a specified elevator.”
😜

Tom Abbott
Reply to  H.R.
September 3, 2021 5:25 am

That’s one of my favorite cartoons! It is perfect for application to human-caused climate change, and explains it quite well.

Climate Change Alarmists should be more explicit in step two.

Step two would involve actually producing some evidence of their claims, instead of depending on unknown mechanisms and faith and hope.

Sara
September 2, 2021 5:12 am

Is this really going to go forward, now that Cuomo has been kicked out the door?

I can only imagine Manhattan being as dark as a coal pit at night. And people who live there put up with this nonsense.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 5:27 am

There’s no reason to think it won’t. Unless a miracle occurs.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 7:07 am

NY can just buy more power from Quebec. That’s the only way political CO2 reduction schemes work, just shut down your own power plants and buy it from out-of-state instead. Produces good stats.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 2, 2021 10:37 am

HydroQuebec was at least sensible enough NOT to provide NY and the US NorthEast a direct High voltage AC connect to Canada’s grid. Instead, they provide power via HVDC interconnect that keeps the NorthEast’s coming power quality problems and blackouts from affecting Canadians.

Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 5:32 am

I know this is anecdotal but it might help with some judgement by others. I use a deep-cycle, 12v, 100 amp-hr battery to run my amateur radio transmitter. It is charged by a 3’x3′ solar panel (2 amp) set outside the operating shack. My radio pulls about 12 watts on receive and 120 watts on transmit. I use the radio for about 1.5hrs in the morning and 1hr in the evening, mostly on receive with about 10 minutes maximum on transmit. There are literally days that the charger will not keep up with my usage, especially during the winter, and I have to depend on the mains for power.

In other words I would need significantly higher output solar panel area as well as significantly higher battery capacity (2 or more batteries) for just low power, intermittent use. I have calculated I would need about 10 times the surface area for the solar panel (100 sqft vs 10 sqft) and at least 300 amp-hr of battery (2 additional deep cycle).

If you apply those factors to the needs of NYC, the amount of renewable power and battery storage becomes impossible to provide locally. NYC would have to depend on outside power to meet its needs which lowers reliability.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 7:13 am

Advocates for the climate act claim that home battery systems are going to make homeowners more resilient. When they make homes use electricity for heating just how big will the battery systems have to be? You calculation suggests the system will probably be the size of the house. Thanks for making the point.

starzmom
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 2, 2021 8:17 am

It will also be very flammable–probably very hazardously so.

H.R.
Reply to  starzmom
September 2, 2021 3:46 pm

No problemo, starzmom.

After the law is passed requiring everyone to have a backup battery to assure every home has 100% reliable electricity, they’ll just pass a law making it illegal to keep the battery backup inside a home.

Now, that makes no sense to most people, but to politicians that are supposed to “do sumpthin’?

Senator Snort: “These backup battery fires are a big problem… I know! Let’s just make it illegal to keep them in a house. That’ll stop those house fires.”

And thus the next problem to solve is created.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
September 3, 2021 5:30 am

I wouldn’t want one in my house.

Bryan A
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 2, 2021 9:53 am

It could be the size of the house but…
That’s another Story

Last edited 20 days ago by Bryan A
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 2, 2021 11:27 am

Heat? What heat? People will be living under buffalo blankets. Invest in a buffalo herd if you want to be rich after 2030! Other opportunities? Wool clothing. Horse blankets. I’m sure there are others.

StephenP
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 2, 2021 1:27 pm

Don’t forget having to recharge the batteries when flat after a power cut, and don’t forget to tell your insurance company that you have a large lithium battery in your house/apartment.
Would the local electricity supply system need to be beefed up to allow simultaneous use of electricity and recharging the batteries?

Bryan A
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 9:52 am

It is painfully obvious what your problem really is.
Your usage is Unsustainable.
Solution…
Use LESS radio time.
😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2021 11:02 am

And you will be happy.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2021 11:22 am

And less cooling, less heating, less cooking, less cleaning (vacuum cleaner perhaps?), less light, etc. Get up with the sun coming up, go to bed with the sun going down (of course I’m close to doing that anyway!). In other words go back to life in the early 1800’s on the Kansas plains – live in a sod house, farm with a mule, raise a cow for milk, and raise chickens for meat. What do those in urban America do?

Bryan A
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 1:55 pm

Go to the store twice a week…and wear a mask

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2021 8:13 am

You are assuming that you will be permitted to own animals.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2021 10:37 am

I’m pretty sure the authorities will have much more pressing matters to worry about than my animals.

mark from the midwest
September 2, 2021 5:39 am

For better or worse I work with a lot of people who are typical urban New Yorker’s. Many of them have little or no idea of how the physical / natural world works. Many of them are shocked or astounded by the fact that I use a chain saw, have power tools well beyond the capability of one of those Black and Decker electric screw drivers, and that 14 inches of snow is “no big deal.” They did not grow up interacting with the natural world in an unrestricted, (self-determining), fashion and often have a view fashioned as a one-off from NPR or some other biased source of miss-information. I’m not surprised that they would look at the virtual-signaling piece of drivel of the “Climate Act” and believe that it was all good.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mark from the midwest
September 2, 2021 5:51 am

I can second this. When my youngest son (who grew up in rural Kansas) moved to Boston he was astounded at how little many of the citified folks knew about how things worked. No idea where their hamburger came from other than from the grocery store. Some didn’t even know how to reset a circuit breaker in their electrical panel and had to call a repairman! Most had never used a handsaw let alone a circular saw. Simply unbelievable. And yet they also think they are somehow privileged enough to tell those of us in fly-over country how to live!

starzmom
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 8:16 am

I third this. When we moved to Kansas 30 years ago, my husband told his (NY area) sisters he had his dress shirts laundered by the Native American ladies down at the creek. And they believed him!

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  starzmom
September 2, 2021 10:55 am

Fourth . 😉 Have lived in Ks for over 70 yrs.
Neighbors daughter earned a full ride scholarship to Yale .
Nearing graduation , classmates asked if her parents were coming .
“No, it’s too far for the horse and the wagon.”
And they believed her !

starzmom
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
September 2, 2021 11:15 am

I like that!!!

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 1:10 pm

Several years ago a good friend of mine lived in Boulder, Colorado. When his wife’s mother came out to visit from the “City” (i.e., New York City) she fully expected a stage coach to pick her up at the airport and take her through Indian country to get her to his house. After finding out there was no trouble with the natives, she wound up staying about a month, and two years later moved out to Boulder.

MarkW
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 3, 2021 8:14 am

Not many natives in Boulder.

Bodiam
September 2, 2021 5:40 am

“New York’s electric system is de-regulated so reliability planning is provided by the New York Independent System Operator, various state agencies and the NYSRC”, not to mention various federal agencies.

Unlike airline and phone deregulation, utility deregulation has led to more regulation. There is no good path forward or backward.

starzmom
Reply to  Bodiam
September 2, 2021 11:20 am

This strategy of separating reliability planning from the electric generation is designed to avoid accountability and responsibility for any of the problems that occur due to the regulators demand for an unreliable electric system and supply. In other words it is specifically designed to fail, and it will be nobody’s fault.

observa
September 2, 2021 5:41 am

 I fear New York consumers will be lab rats for a politically motivated virtue signaling empty gesture that is going to cost enormous sums of money, and, in the event of a major blackout, cause much more harm than good.

You mean to tell me New Yorkers might be better lab rats than we South Australians? What can I say except far be it from me to steal their thunder and take all the glory here.

What a wonderful woke euphemism for renewables is ‘energy limited resources’. Sir Humphrey Appleby couldn’t better such a superlative.

Reply to  observa
September 2, 2021 7:15 am

New York and South Australia in a race to the bottom!!!

Bryan A
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
September 2, 2021 9:55 am

Shovel ready work

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2021 1:13 pm

Yep… to bury ’em both after everybody moves elsewhere.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2021 1:59 pm

If they both shovel into each others hole, they’ll eventually bury each other

ResourceGuy
Reply to  observa
September 2, 2021 9:54 am

I think I see where they’re going with this. Each power outage will be blamed on climate change and come with huge demands for federal money. So an overcast day will be worth one subway line revamp and one slow wind day will get them universal pre-K funding.

yirgach
September 2, 2021 6:52 am

I remember the 1965 NE Blackout. I had a paper route and was up on top of hill on my bike delivering the evening newspaper (remember those things?). Took a break to admire the view of the Connecticut River Valley and the City of Hartford, quite beautiful on a clear November night.
Then suddenly a black wave spread across the entire valley, it was stunning to watch the lights go out as if a strong gust of wind blew out all the candles…

The power was out for several long days. Ironically this still happens occassionally where I live now, in Southern VT, mostly due to trees dropping on the lines or too much wind/rain.
You learn how to live without power for 4 or 5 days, after that it’s time to head out…

Dave Fair
Reply to  yirgach
September 2, 2021 11:07 am

A one-day-plus outage in any major city will now lead to anarchy.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 1:18 pm

I believe you mean additional anarchy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 2, 2021 1:48 pm

No, I mean real anarchy. Our police now keep the pot to a boil. When it blows its lid you will see real anarchy.

Ronald Stein
September 2, 2021 7:10 am

Who in their right mind wants to rely on breezes and sunshine for a continuous uninterruptible supply of electricity? Intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine, has not, and will not, run the economies of the world, as electricity alone is unable to support the prolific growth rates of the medical industry, military, airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, and trucking infrastructures to meet the demands of the exploding world population. 

Only healthy and wealthy countries like the USA, Germany, Australia, and the UK can subsidize electricity from breezes and sunshine, and intermittent electricity at best. The 80 percent of the 8 billion on earth living on less than 10 dollars a day cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag. Those poorer countries must rely on affordable and abundant coal for reliable electricity, while residents in the healthy and wealthier countries pay dearly for those subsidies with some of the highest cost for electricity in the world.

oeman 50
September 2, 2021 8:03 am

And there is an organization called the Clean Energy Group who are calling for phasing out all peaking power units in NYC, because the are “dirty” and “old.” They are to be replaced with solar, wind, energy efficiency and batteries. A recipe for disaster.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  oeman 50
September 2, 2021 1:31 pm

Yep… ya can’t fix STUPID!

ResourceGuy
September 2, 2021 8:53 am

Not to worry, collaborative dictatorships will supply NY going forward.

China’s CNPC Looks To Revive Oil Projects In Venezuela (yahoo.com)

Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 2, 2021 9:31 am

They Left will have “Joe for Oil” vanity Liberal projects popping up all over to try to make themselves out as compassionate for the people left without heat during the old of winter.

Enter Joe Kennedy. There was a heating oil crisis 20 years ago — again because of federal cutbacks — when Joe Kennedy, now 66, left the U.S. House after serving from 1986 to 2000. Through Citizens Energy Corp., a nonprofit he started, he supplied free or low-cost home heating oil to the needy. Remember the public service television ads — Joe-4-Oil — that featured Kennedy delivering home heating oil to the needy?

Kennedy took some criticism because the cheap oil came from Hugo Chavez, the late socialist/communist leader of Venezuela, and because Kennedy paid himself a big salary.

The elderly and low-income people in Massachusetts who got the oil did not care where it came from, only that it was cheap, or free, and that it warmed their homes during harsh New England winters. Joe-4-Oil slowly came to an end after Chavez died in 2013 and Venezuela became an economic basket case.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/15/lucas-we-need-a-new-joe-4-oil/

Richard Page
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 2, 2021 10:11 am

Damn – I may need to apologise to some people on here. I honestly didn’t think China would go back to Venezuela while the US sanctions were in place. I guess the Chinese know about Biden and his limitations, and the mess of Afghanistan is just encouraging them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
September 3, 2021 5:44 am

Yes, the Chicoms probably know about Biden’s weaknesses better than anyone. They may even have some inside information/leverage.

September 2, 2021 9:19 am

This plan for energy disaster will follow the Joe Biden governance model.

  • The plan produces the very thing it said it was trying to avoid.

(more emissions, not less. More expensive electricity, not less. Unrealiable electricity, not reliable electricity)

  • When the predictable disaster hits, the political decision makers will deny and deflect all blame to other actors and previous administrations.

(the initiator sitting in charge that pushed the decisions made on the ground that directly resulted from said self-created disaster will claim themselves blameless.)

  • Then claim, “The Buck stops here” and give then give themselves a pay raise while propaganda machine, formerly known as journalists, white washes the whole mess to gas light the People.
  • Many Americans will die and/or be left in dire situations, whilst the politicians responsible take false victory laps on how they brought “net zero” to happen.
Last edited 20 days ago by joelobryan
Doc Chuck
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 2, 2021 11:28 pm

Yup, that consistent appeal of deceit by empty gestures all the way down to the bottom. Or as it has become lodged in the very heart of a hard won modernity that our own human corruption cannot sustain . . . the new normal.

Bryan A
September 2, 2021 9:47 am

We’ll see…
If OPEC isn’t “Screwed” by Feb 28 2022 then you are wrong and must admit so (unless you meant “By February” in some other open ended year)

mwhite
September 2, 2021 9:50 am

You get what you vote for.

Reply to  mwhite
September 2, 2021 10:45 am

Joe Biden just increased SNAP food stamp allocations starting in October by 27%. According to economists reported by the WSJ, the average beneficiary family of four will get more from SNAP than they spend on food. That’s how Dems buy votes with OPM.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ― Margaret Thatcher

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2021 8:19 am

AOC declared that everyone is entitled to a living wage, even if that aren’t able or willing to work.

Ron Long
September 2, 2021 9:54 am

Among other of your predictions, Mark, your statement “Ironically the mods will delete this,…” turns out to not be correct.

MarkW
September 2, 2021 10:22 am

Looks like the scope of your paranoid fantasies is increasing.
When do you expect to declare yourself king of the world?

CD in Wisconsin
September 2, 2021 10:39 am

“It’s hilarious how you guys just charge gleefully into your deaths, ignoring the obvious fact that every important field has been stagnant or declining for years and there is no backlog of work which would be needed.”

***********

Ingraham,

Like Paul Ehrlich before you in the 1960s and ’70s, you seem to revel in doing this kind of thing. Whatever emotional and psychological need you are feeding with this behavior, I find it interesting that you seem unfazed by the failure of Ehrlich’s predictions before you (The Population Bomb 1968). You happily walk in his footsteps anyway as if Ehrlich never happened.

Prognosticating a future of gloom as you a Ehrlich do is the folly of fools, and this Malthusian-ism of the the two of you (dating back to Malthus in 1798) gets older and more tired as time goes on.

MarkW
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 3, 2021 7:59 am

MI has declared that Ehrlich was actually right, he just made a few minor math errors.

Kevin kilty
September 2, 2021 1:10 pm

In every case after blackouts in 1959, 1961 196519772003, and 2012 new requirements for infrastructure and operating rules were implemented to prevent future reoccurrences.

Some years ago I looked into bridge collapses in the U.S. in some detail. In every case the Transportation Safety Board and others involved said something to the effect that this will change the way we treat bridge safety. Yet, bridges continue to fall down. Major infrastructure problems always stem from a confluence of events that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to foresee. Thus, we continue to encounter problems. The biggest difficult to foresee issue at present might be what the fool politcians, activists, and voting public might decide to do on any given day.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 2, 2021 4:27 pm

Great point: “Major infrastructure problems always stem from a confluence of events that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to foresee.” The confluence of events will be different for a renewable energy system so there will be a new set of events that will cause blackouts that will be solved in retrospect.

MarkW
Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 3, 2021 8:22 am

The biggest single cause of all of these disasters is a lack of inspection and/or maintenance.

You can’t hold press events announcing an inspection, or the start of routine maintenance.
As a result funding for these activities get cut in favor of splashier projects that will get the politician some positive press.

Kevin kilty
September 2, 2021 1:13 pm

Weren’t you, just yesterday, predicting “peak condensates” or something like that?

AndyHce
September 2, 2021 3:06 pm

While the universe is awash in huge energy flows, humans ability to tap into those flows is currently very limited. 4G nuclear is not yet (if ever?) fully developed but it is still clear that the potential, including the potential of accumulated “nuclear waste” is high relative to human activity. Is there any other rational path forward?

Geoff Sherrington
September 2, 2021 9:41 pm

The basic principles of large scale electricity production and distribution, plus costs of the main generation types, have been known adequately for the 50 years that have elapsed since I first got involved.
How can people be so stupid as to end up with New York and South Australian tragic comedies?? Geoff S

Tom Abbott
September 3, 2021 5:17 am

“Ironically the mods will delete this, even though my posts contain predictions you’re pretending will be wrong.”

Well, you are wrong about this,so what else are you wrong about?

%d bloggers like this: