NYC Hates Its Middle-Class Homeowners

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Jane Menton

Four years ago, just before our son was born, my husband and I bought our first home: a two bedroom, one bathroom apartment in Queens. 

Queens has a lot to recommend it; it is often known as the City’s “middle class” borough, with almost no slums, and an equivalent lack of notable wealth. It is not a small area: more than 100 square miles, with a population over 2.25 million. The homeownership rate is about 45%, which is high for New York City. In addition, it is the most ethnically diverse county in the U.S., and a place where immigrants from all over the world have sought the American dream. Unfortunately, our politicians are working hard to put an end to that. 

About a year ago I joined the board of my building, a nondescript co-op which has about 160 apartments. Within my first month of joining a senior board member, one who has been on the board for many years and is about 20 years my senior, sent us all the following email: 

“I just wanted to bring this topic to your attention… The Climate Mobilization Act of 2019 will have a big impact on our building. Our emissions must be cut by 60% in the next 10 years or so. If we fail, the fines are in the range of $150k a year. We will be required to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments to upgrade our systems.” 

For reference, this act, the Climate Mobilization Act, is a New York City statute also known by the name Local Law 97 (LL97).

Since I am the daughter of the MC, I was already familiar in a general way with this New York City law, and with the similar law at the state level known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, also passed in 2019. But our senior board member’s email brought home the particular financial consequences that our building – and hundreds of others like it – would shortly be facing.

My colleague’s email was accompanied by the following chart, created by this website, called the NYC LL97 Carbon Emissions Calculator. This site has been endorsed by the City for buildings to use to calculate how much they are supposed to reduce their carbon emissions and how much they will owe in fines if they fail to install “zero-emissions” heating systems by the set deadlines. Here is the chart that my colleague came up with for our building:

According to the chart, about 75% of our carbon emissions result from our natural gas heat, represented in green in the circles in the lower right portion of the chart.  The City’s statute mandates a series of lowering thresholds for building emission per square foot of space. By 2035, supposedly we must reduce our emissions by 60%, or face fines well in excess of $100,000 per year. In order to reduce our emissions by 60% we would have no option but to convert our building away from its current gas heat system – which is quite reliable, only a few years old, and in fine working condition – to an electric heating system.  

In addition to the lowering emissions mandates, the City statute also prohibits new natural gas hookups in new buildings under 7 stories starting in 2024, and buildings over 7 stories starting in 2027.   

Policy makers busily writing these edicts have yet to figure out how NYC’s electric grid could support such a transition. Spoiler alert: it cannot.  They push ahead even as California begins to realize the folly of requiring everyone to buy an electric car. Supposedly New York is going to triple the load on the electrical grid by forcing the electrification of all buildings and automobiles, while also closing reliable fossil fuel power plants and trying to replace them with wind and solar facilities that only work part time. Meanwhile, they have made no effort to demonstrate how this could possibly work. See prior Manhattan Contrarian discussion, for example here. Beyond being a financial burden on New York’s middle class, there are serious quality of life concerns to consider.

Assuming that they decide to or are forced to go along with this, how much will it cost the unfortunate co-op owners? We haven’t yet had an estimate done for our building, but here are a few words from Warren Schreiber, board president of another Queens co-op, the Bay Terrace Gardens Co-op Section 1, and co-president of the Presidents Co-op & Condo Council (PCCC):

“Converting to (electric) heat pumps will cost [the co-op] $2.5 to $3 million, which does not include finance charges. This expense will result in a 25-30% monthly maintenance increase. Shareholders who have lived here for 20, 30, 40 and 50 years will have to leave Bay Terrace Gardens to find more affordable housing.”

A 25-30% maintenance increase is significant. In my building, we just had a relatively minor maintenance assessment due to rising gas prices. The total was $45,000, spread over 160 apartments, to be paid over the course of three months. We announced this at the annual shareholder meeting in September. During the meeting, our accountant also briefed everyone on the other things that were likely to affect our building finances, including: rising cost of labor, rising property taxes, and inflation.

“This meeting is a call to action to vote Republican” I texted my friend on the board. 

She replied: “Yep.”

After the meeting, a shareholder came up to me to complain about the assessment. 

“If you are going to have a maintenance assessment, you really need to give tenants more warning. It’s too expensive. It’s an increase of $88 a month for me.” 

In our building, $100 a month is not money most residents won’t miss. Knowing that, I seized the opportunity to warn this resident about the Climate Mobilization Act and the much higher costs NYC plans to impose on us. 

“But that’s crazy! They can’t do that — it would ruin the city! You know, this is the Republicans’ fault and the Democrats are too cowardly to stand up to them.” 

How anyone could believe that when our city is under exclusive control by the Democratic Party, and the “Green New Deal” has been entirely championed and sponsored by Democrats, is beyond me. But that’s the NYC mindset for you. Even as the costs of policies championed by Democrats begin to hit home, there is acute denial over who’s to blame.

I am trying to take productive action. I wrote the following to my fellow board members: 

“My primary concern in all this is that it seems clear the city wants to push us to convert to electric heat. The cost to retrofit such a system to our building would be astronomical, not to mention that the cost per resident for electric heat would be a significant personal expense. Further, if hundreds of NYC buildings were to suddenly depend on electric heat, I have no faith in the city grid to rise to that level of demand. The cascading negative consequences of imposing this on NYC co-op owners are immense. I’m seeing a housing market crash and financial ruin for middle class citizens (as evidence, see: Europe). What can we realistically do to push back?”

I haven’t heard back from them yet. I’ll let you know if I do.

In the meantime, there are several co-ops in the city who understand what’s at stake. They have mounted a legal challenge against the law. I hope to join them.

FRANCIS MENTON adds: The costs of installing and running an electric heat system are actually the smaller part of the problem. The much bigger issue is that the City has embarked on forcing all buildings (and separately, all automobiles) to convert to electricity without any sort of realistic plan of how to provide the necessary electricity. My recommendation to Jane and her Board is that they get together with several other co-ops in Queens and call a meeting with their State and City representatives where they say: “We can’t responsibly convert our buildings to electric heat until you can demonstrate a workable system to provide the electricity without blackouts. Otherwise we risk having our owners freeze to death in the winter.

Read the full story here.

5 34 votes
Article Rating
133 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 30, 2022 6:10 am

But freezing in the dark is the common outcome of relying on wind and solar, as Texas discovered in Feb 2021.
The Greens will attempt to gaslight, but too much investment in wind was the cause, as it deterred investment in nonWeather dependent sources.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 30, 2022 8:34 am

The freezing in Texas (February 2021) was the result of natural gas power generation failures in extremely cold weather. Windmills are dependent on wind speed. Ther was not much wind. Natural gas is supposed to work all the time, and back up windmills when needed. It didn’t work. those are the facts, jack.

OweninGA
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 8:52 am

No, that is the propaganda! In the old reliable days, the gas pipelines had gas motors that controlled the valves reliably down to just about any conceivable temperature. The regulators decided that caused too much CO2 release and FORCED the conversion to electrically operated valves. THE WHOLE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY THE FALSE ATTIBUTION OF CATASTROPHE TO CO2.

Reply to  OweninGA
October 30, 2022 11:31 am

I said the 2021 Texas blackout was caused by a natural gas failure, Thanks for providing details of a key problem with the Texas natural gas infrastructure.

The root cause is ERCOT, who manages the Texas grid.
Almost every decision they have ever made was wrong.
The extreme cold weather cause rolling blackouts in February 2011 — they didn’t fix that problem (still not fixed) — they bought windmills instead. Whose fault is that? ERCOT.

AWG
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 3:40 pm

You clearly know nothing about ERCOT’s responsibilities and nothing about how unreliable energy got inserted into the Texas electrical grid.

Simplistic ignorant attacks against a single entity is childish. This problem has been building for decades, includes corrupt and cowardly Malthusian politicians (both parties) at the city, county, state and federal level, zealous EPA and subversive elements within the Department of Energy, media, academic and NGO propaganda, billions in tech money splashing around, lobbyists for rent-seeking and tax subsidy seeking organizations, foreign destabilization programs (eg. Russia , China, WEF), an innumerate and technically ignorant population, copious quantities of virtue signaling by a myriad of dopamine addicted social media afficionados

Numerous Cassandras have been warning about the natural conclusion for generations, their reward is #cancel, ridicule and deplatforming. There is no money in being right. There is no glory in stopping disaster.

When the day comes when this comes crashing down, many of the people who started this will be enjoying a pension or dead – escaping all accountability. All current actors will simply be saying that they were just doing their job or what the people wanted.

Reply to  AWG
October 30, 2022 5:58 pm

You clearly know nothing about ERCOT’s responsibilities and nothing about how unreliable energy got inserted into the Texas electrical grid.

ERCOT has lots of unreliable power sources
— Solar at night
— Windmills with low wind speeds
— Natural gas in extremely cold weather
— Even coal in extremely cold weather
— Nuclear power works fine.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:43 pm

The natural gas was only unreliable because some idiot regulator directed the pipeline companies to stop using gas from the pipeline to run the pumps, and switch to electricity. When the wind power died, and the solar power died, the electricity to the pipeline pumps died. You can work it out from there – natural gas was unreliable by design of the regulators.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 31, 2022 9:20 am

It takes hard work by bureaucrats to make natural gas power plants unreliable.

Pennsylvania uses a lot of natural gas for electricity too. PA is definitely colder than Texas, yet you never hear of natural gas power plants failing in PA.

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 4:26 pm

The two main problems with the Texas natural gas infrastructure were the electric pumps used for natural gas pipelines, instead of using natural gas, and the more important problem of natural gas production in extremely cold weather.

Weekly natural gas production fell sharply, by 45% in Texas, and the EIA explains why at the link below, with a chart:

U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis

Reply to  AWG
October 31, 2022 9:12 am

Not only do I know far more about ERCOT than you do, but I read the entire FERC report on the February 2011 blackouts immediately after the February 2021 blackouts. The cold weather problems with the entire Texas energy infrastructure (not just power plants) in February 2011 were never fixed and they struck again in February 2021.

There were strong financial incentives to build wind farms. In general, utilities sell electricity at cost, and make profits on their investments. The incentives in Texas were designed to favor investments in windmills — a huge mistake that I blame on ERCOT.

Buying lots of windmills was not a fix for cold weather problems — they made the cold weather problems worse — especially by not being equipped with optional blade heaters.

And every dollar invested in windmills is one dollar NOT available to expand or build new hydrocarbon power plants.

Texas is still vulnerable to extreme cold weather — this problem first surfaced in the 1980s and was never fixed.

ReportontheSouthwestColdWeatherEventfromFebruary2011Report.pdf (ferc.gov)

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 8:56 am

Wrong. The natural gas failed when wind powered pipeline pumps failed.

The root cause was the dependence on “renewable” electric sources to provide reliable power.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 30, 2022 11:40 am

Clueless arbitrary explanation
Natural gas failed to deliver
Texas did not depend on wind power to make the natural gas infrastructure work! Wind power output can fall to near zero for the entire state for minutes or hours EVERY week of the year, at random. The grid could fail ALMOST EVERY WEEK IF IT RELIED ON WIND POWER.

The Texas grid failed two times — February 2011 and February 2021 — both times because hydrocarbon power plants failed to work properly in unusually cold weather.

The common factor is very cold weather.
2011 blackout was with few windmills and very cold
2021 blackout was with lots of windmills and even colder.

The windmills caused no problems between Feb. 2011 and Feb, 2021. Why not? Because the problem was extremely cold weather, NOT THE WINDMILLS.

Joel
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 7:34 pm

You are not a serious person. Wind and solar failed in a spectacular way. See the attached graphic. The windmills were fine. There was just no wind. Duh. So, freezing cold and no wind power. Who would have thought of that?

TX Blackout.png
Reply to  Joel
October 31, 2022 9:26 am

Solar power does not “fail” at night
Wind power does not “fail” when there’s little wind.
These systems provide variable power output depending on the weather.
That’s what they are designed to do
Natural gas power is designed to work in all weather conditions — THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN TEXAS IN FEBRUARY 2011 AND FEBRUARY 2021 WHEN THE WEATHER WAS UNUSUALLY COLD.

You are a windmill denier !

Thanks for the complement — I try not to be a serious person

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 4:17 pm

If solar power doesn’t fail at night, and wind power doesn’t fail when there is no wind, then by your own definition natural gas power doesn’t fail when there is no natural gas.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 1, 2022 11:17 am

Yes, solar power DOES “fail” to produce electricity at night, or in poor weather conditions or when snow and ice covered. And wind power DOES “fail” to produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow hard enough – OR when the wind blows TOO HARD.

The problem is that the Eco-Nazis treat these intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable power sources as if they are equivalent to thermal plants that can run 24/7. They are most certainly NOT equivalent to such thermal plants (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, waste-to-energy, etc.).

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:46 pm

Richard,

What was the renewable-energy penetration in 2011? In 2021? How many reliable power generation stations were taken off line, mothballed or decommisioned between 2011 and 2021. Try to do some actual causal analysis rather than believing the press.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 31, 2022 9:28 am

2011 wind power capacity was so low it was barely mentioned in a 300+ page report on the February 2011 blackouts. Something like 1/8 or 1/10 the nameplate capacity in Texas today.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:23 am

Jack,
The facts are this…
Wind dropped off on Feb 9th
Most turbines froze up on Feb 10th
Wind Generation Capacity fell almost 90%

Solar was near normal Feb 9th, 10th
Solar started diminishing Feb 11th
Solar all but vanished Feb 12 – Feb 22

Gas ramped up from providing 18 GWh on Feb 8th – 9th
To providing almost 40 GWh on Feb 14th
(Texas average is about 36 GWh off peak and 43 GWh on peak)
Gas more than stepped up at a time Wind and Solar were NIL

The outages occurring from Feb 15th through Feb 18th were more from a lack of wind and solar which were practically nonexistent than from Gas which was operation at 170% of normal generating almost 25 GWh daily, combined with a cold weather induced load the system wasn’t able to handle.
After that the system was slow to recover through Feb 26th as is to be expected when you have millions out of power at one time

Even if Texas had doubled wind capacity and tripled solar capacity, it wouldn’t have mattered as solar was nonexistent and wind was crippled
comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 30, 2022 11:46 am

Meaningless data
Wind and solar require 100% hydrocarbon backup that works in extremely cold weather, Texas DID NOT HAVE 100% HYDROCARBON BACKUP THAT WORKED IN EXTREMELY COLD WEATHER. They still don’t. That was the problem.
There were many times in the past decade when there was little wind in Texas. Not just in the hours before the February 2021 blackout.

Now you tell me why the Texas grid only failed once in 10 years since February 2011.

What changed in February 2021?

ANSWER: The coldest weather in those ten years happened and CAUSED PROBLEMS WITH THE TEXAS GRID, ONCE AGAIN.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 11:53 am

Only meaningless to you because it disproves your assertion that Gas was the cause. Gas stepped up, it only couldn’t step up sufficiently due to the nature of the freeze event. Texas needed gas for both Heating and Electric production.
We certainly didn’t see either wind or Solar ramp up to compensate for your purported gas shortfall (a 170% increase in production shortfall) they couldn’t, their ability was nullified by weather.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 30, 2022 6:03 pm

So it was just a coincidence that Texas ONLY had electric grid problems in extremely cold weather, starting in the 1980s? Don’t make me laugh.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 7:14 pm

There are no regulatory differences between now and prior to 1980? Don’t make me laugh.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 31, 2022 9:37 am

You contradicted yourself in one comment.
I blamed the blackout mainly on natural gas and you disagreed. Then you agreed with me using this sentence criticizing natural gas:
Gas stepped up, it only couldn’t step up sufficiently due to the nature of the freeze event.” 

I believe ERCOT had a contingency plan d for a worst case wind weak with output averaging only 6% of capacity. In fact, due to icing the ERCOT windmills averages about 4% of capacity for a week. Just under the estimated worst case conditions.

It’s obvious ERCOT did not have hydrocarbon power backup in case windmills provided little or no output, which they can do for a few minutes, or hours, every week of the year. But there is no blackout every week of the year — just once every 10 years when the weather is extremely cold — February 2011 and February 2021.

Ian Johnson
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 12:23 pm

As you say, Wind and solar require 100% hydrocarbon backup that works in extremely cold weather, so why have wind and solar?

AWG
Reply to  Ian Johnson
October 30, 2022 3:47 pm

To keep electricity wildly expensive by building at 200% rated capacity and to scar the land with these hideous windmills and solar panel farms.

Everything the Left proposes and does results in ugliness, evil and misery.

Reply to  AWG
October 30, 2022 6:07 pm

A bazillion windmills + no wind = no electricity.
(Greene’s Iron Law of Windmills).

Reply to  Ian Johnson
October 30, 2022 6:05 pm

I have been AGAINST UNRELIABLE WIND AND SOLAR POWER FOR A DECADE.

ADDING UNRELIABLES TO A GRID WHERE YOU WANT BETTER THAN 99.9% RELIABILITY IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER IN THE LONG RUN.

Reply to  Ian Johnson
October 31, 2022 9:39 am

Good question leftists never ask.
I ASSUME THEY PREFER AN UNREALIABLE ELECTRIC GRID. It seems to me that leftists always want to do whatever hurts the US, and violates common sense, on every subject.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 4:07 pm

Wind and solar were providing about 15 GWh of generation Feb 6th, 7th and 8th prior to the event. Gas was providing about 10 GWh. Wind dropped and Solar tanked and Gas took up the slack producing more than 25 GWh. By Feb 13th and 14th gas was providing more than 40 GWh, more than 100% of the average Texas Daily demand. Gas stepped up! Then demand jumped to almost 80 GWh (double average) gas was already maxed out producing more than 100% average demand. Solar and Wind failed to Step up and produce anything

Reply to  Bryan A
October 30, 2022 6:08 pm

Solar and wind never “step up”
They rely on nature and are highly variable.
The good news is they make electric grid management jobs a lot more exciting.

BryanA
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:14 pm

“Solar and Wind never “step up” ” Thats correct, They Can’t, it’s not in their nature to be able to step up. They’re either on or off and dependent on Time of Day and Wind Speed to be productive. You can’t shovel more Sun at solar panels to get more generation from the and you can’t blow at a windmill and make it work better.
Allow me to complete your second statement … (they rely on nature and are highly variable) … and thereby have no business being relied upon to power a modern society

Last edited 3 months ago by BryanA
Reply to  BryanA
October 31, 2022 9:42 am

” (they (solar and wind) rely on nature and are highly variable) … and thereby have no business being relied upon to power a modern society”

Absolutely right, repeated in bold type because that’s the bottom line!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 1, 2022 12:44 pm

Indeed, so why are you hell bent on blaming anything BUT the reliance on wind and solar for the Feb 2021 blackouts? They ARE the problem.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 3:06 am

If you have to have 100% fossil fuel backup then why have the “renewable” power at all? You are just adding unnecessary costs to the grid!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 31, 2022 9:44 am

In the past ten years I have not come up with one reason to add windmills or solar panels to a grid where 99.9% or better reliability is the goal. … Of course I’m not invested in, or working at, alternate anergy companies!

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 5:43 am

Richard, you are mistaken in your analysis.

1) Many fossil fueled plants have been mothballed or entirely decommissioned.

2) Gas provision was not designed to meet BOTH heating AND electricity requirements with zero wind or solar..

Whose fault this is ultimately falls back to the regulators who need to admit that severe weather CAN decimate the windmill/solar output and adequate gas/coal must be planned on and engineered to fill the entire loss of wind/solar.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 1, 2022 11:23 am

The need for 100% backup is why we shouldn’t be building ANY wind and solar save strictly “off grid” uses.

Gas didn’t account for the blackout of Feb 2021, wind and solar dependence did, period.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:29 am

The windmills had been some 35% of the supply the week before. Windmills do not work in freezing rain and still air. Electric compressors on gas lines also failed, as did some other failures in weatherization.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 30, 2022 11:49 am

Windmill output as a percentage of nameplate capacity changes every hour of every day of the year… So what?
Everyone who buys them knows that. That’s why they need 100% natural gas BACKUP THAT WORKS IN ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS. Texas did not have that backup.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 12:32 pm

Texas failed to charge the subsidy miners invested in wind for the required backup, leading to resource misallocation.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 31, 2022 9:50 am

That’s a complicated way to say what I’ve been saying in prior comments. To save money Texas hydrocarbon fuel spare capacity was about half the national average. Texas grid interconnection capacity was very low compared with other US grids. Texas bought windmills without optional blade heaters. They had natural gas supplies that could not get deliver in extremely cold weather, unlike in much colder US states. ERCOT saved money here and there and maybe that ended up costing ERCOT more money in the long run. Because they wasted tons of money on windmills.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 9:59 am

The deicers on windmill blades were not intended to withstand several days of freezing rain, and required an outside source of power, as the blades had to be feathered.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 1, 2022 1:14 pm

Windmill blades still freeze up when not moving and being soaked with freezing rain – especially when RELYING ON THEMSELVES for power.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 2:22 pm

The demand was such that Texas would have needed more than 250% FF back-up availability. Gasses inability to ramp up over 170% of normal isn’t the cause it’s just another symptom of Big Green Energy Policies inability to supply adequate to power a modern society through inclement weather

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2022 12:52 pm

Yes, but if you had enough coal and gas to provide 100% of the needed power, AND gas was used for the pipeline compressors (instead of electric compressors), which would therefore keep the gas in the pipes moving, AND it was “on line” (and thereby generating plenty of its own heat), then “winterization” is largely a non-issue.

Depending on wind and solar, and attempting to start up or ramp up idle plants AFTER they were allowed to freeze up to make up for what they should NOT have rid on is the problem.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 1, 2022 1:12 pm

Relied on (couldn’t edit)

Bill Powers
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:42 am

Richard you are wrong, jack. But then you know you are wrong because it pays well to to be a Used Windmill Salesman for George Soros. You are an agent for the Ruling Class Faceless Cultural Elite who own multiple mansions, private planes and Yachts.

If they locked people up for lying about fossil fuel and “Anthropogenic Global Warm…Aahhh we honestly meant Climate Change all along” they could throw away the key to your jail cell.

Reply to  Bill Powers
October 30, 2022 11:59 am

Bill I thought your comment was really funny!

I have been trying to refute CAGW, and now Nut Zero, on my climate science blog since 2014.

Earlier today Google blocked my blog for “violating community standards” (probably for criticizing the IPCC for eight years!) Fortunately I asked for a review and my blog was unblocked after one hour.

Take a look and you’ll see that I am pro-CO2, but I don’t tolerate misinformation about the Texas blackout or anything else. Most misinformation and disinformation is from leftists, but sometimes from climate realists too.

It is ridiculous to ADD WINDMILLS AND SOLAR PANELS TO AN ELECTRIC GRID THAT YOU WANT TO BE 99.9% RELIABLE. It was stupid to add windmills to the Texas grid when the real problem was the lack of winterization of the entire state energy infrastructure, even beyond power plants, that already CAUSED A HUGE PROBLEM IN FEBRUARY 2011 DURING VERY COLD WEATHER — ROLLING BLACKOUTS THAT AFFECTED 3.2 MILLION TEXANS.

Until Google takes me down again, this is the URL:

Honest global warming chart Blog (elonionbloggle.blogspot.com)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 1:59 am

“It was stupid to add windmills to the Texas grid when the real problem was the lack of winterization of the entire state energy infrastructure”

The Southwest Power Pool (SPP has members in 14 states: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. SPP also provides contract reliability coordination (RC) services in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.), also had blackouts and brownouts during the February 2021, arctic cold snap.

Did the SPP have problems with delivering their natural gas to powerplants or was the problem the lack of wind for the windmills.

I don’t recall anyone in the SPP complaining about frozen natural gas pipeline valves, so I have to assume that the main problem for the SPP was a lack of wind for their windmills.

Oklahoma had about 220 windmills at the time, and only about 20 of them were even working. The same could be said for the other members of the SPP.

The windmills are the problem, not the natural gas.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 31, 2022 9:55 am

I believe blackouts in OK affected about 100,000 people. You say windmills are the problem, but it is it not curious that the problem ONLY shows up with rare, extremely cold weather? … But of course extremely cold weather is not the problem, it’s the windmills??

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 1:50 pm

It’s the lack of wind and it wasn’t just in Oklahoma, it was clear up into Canada.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 1, 2022 1:18 pm

The problem shows up when the wind does not blow at the prescribed speed to make the worse-than-useless windmills work.

And the grid “relies” on that wind generation.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:51 am

Utter BS. Gas used to be used to power the gas pumps. Greentards decided electric pumps would ‘save the planet’. Texans died.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 30, 2022 12:00 pm

i CALL THEM ERCOT
You call then greentards.
We both agree the main problem was the natural gas infrastructure.

Eric H
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 11:12 am

The natural gas pumps used to be run via the natural gas in them. Some watermelons decided it would be “greener” to run them with electricity from the windmills. Wind stopped, electricity stopped, pumps stopped, gas stopped, gas plant stopped, Blackout, Death.

Those are the facts, JACK!

Reply to  Eric H
October 30, 2022 12:03 pm

The natural gas infrastructure could not have depended on wind energy, or else it could have failed every week of the year, in the minutes and hours almost every week when wind output was very low, but it didn’t fail often — just twice in 10 YEARS — BOTH TIME IN VERY COLD WEATHER,

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 12:43 pm

Power production from nat gas went up substantially, that’s not failing.
It could have gone up more but the EPA required the pipeline companies to use electricity to power the pumps that pressurize the lines instead of natural gas, the way it used t be done.
When the grid went down, pressure in the pipes went down as well.

Those are the facts.

Hivemind
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 5:41 pm

Natural gas isn’t supposed to work in the toxic greens utopia. They want the magical wind and solar generators to drive gas and coal out of business.

Joel
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 8:55 pm

Here is an expanded graph of the ERCOT date for Feb 2021.
Looking hard. Don’t see much of a NG failure. NG was also supplying all the heating for TX home, too.
Note 24 hours after the storm hit wind power was essentially zero. Solar was never that much and just faded away over the next week.
Coal held up, and so did nuclear.

TX ERCOT FEB 2021.png
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 5:43 am

Your logic escapes me. The windmills failed because there was no wind but the problems were the fault of natural gas because even with an increase over 100% it couldn’t keep the grid from having blackouts. And then after making that preposterous statement you get smug and add the “jack” just to show your superiority. I think Samuel Clemens gave some advice you should have followed.

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Last edited 3 months ago by Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
October 31, 2022 9:57 am

No one thinks I’m a fool except you.
And I have a certificate to prove I’ve had my head examined, and they found nothing.
That gets me wondering about your sanity!

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 6:10 am

BREAKING NEWS !
AP NEW YORK CITY: New York author Jane Menton was arrested by the Biden FBI for fomenting an apartment building insurrection. Father Francis Menton pledged to defend his daughter “up to the Supreme Court, or even higher”. Ms. Menton then announced that she will represent herself in court. Unlike other get out of jail free crimes in NYC, bail was set at $13 million, and a fair hearing was promised for “one of these days”. There is no tolerance for apartment building insurrection in Queens, NYC.

SMC
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 8:08 am

Nice! But, probably a good idea to remember Poe’s Law when writing sarcasm. You never know who might read it and try to take it seriously. When the Babylon Bee can get ‘fact checked’…

Reply to  SMC
October 30, 2022 8:35 am

Only weenies write “sarc” after posting sarcasm !

SMC
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:21 am

LOL, then put an emoji. 🙂

Reply to  SMC
October 30, 2022 12:03 pm

Only weenies use emojis !

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:27 am

Weenies do and trolls don’t

ron long
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 10:28 am

That’s right, and if you were born sarcastic you don’t need it or care, either one.

Joe Dun
Reply to  SMC
October 30, 2022 10:22 am

Sadly, in today’s world, there are many REAL headlines that are so ridiculous. it would be easy to misinterpret them as sarcasm.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Joe Dun
October 30, 2022 5:04 pm

Poe’s Law in action.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:29 am

There’s no tolerance for republicans or conservative viewpoints in NY either

Reply to  Bryan A
October 30, 2022 12:06 pm

I permanently left New York a few years after becoming a libertarian in 1973. I had to finish college first and had a New York State Regents Scholarship that could only be used for New York State colleges. No leftists tolerate other viewpoints.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 2:28 pm

They are kind of tolerant of Central-Central Left-Left-Far Left-Extreme Far Left and AOC viewpoints but if you lean even slightly right you are an Intolerant Hater and Public Enemy number one and not to be tolerated in their “Polite Society”

Scissor
October 30, 2022 6:15 am

Move.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2022 6:33 am

Now.

London Broil
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 30, 2022 7:00 am

But the diversity…

AndyHce
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2022 12:24 pm

Move.

All indications are that it is coming for you, where ever you go.

Gregory Woods
October 30, 2022 6:32 am

Elections have consequences…

MarkW
October 30, 2022 6:34 am

I would love to know how the lady can assume that these rising costs are the fault of Republicans.
I can only assume that she is yet another socialist who believes that government should be paying for everything.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2022 8:04 am

Part of AOC’s district is in Queens!

dumbvotr.jpg
auto
Reply to  Old Man Winter
October 31, 2022 10:03 am

Ad feminem.
But almost cost me a monitor!

Auto

Kenji
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2022 8:39 am

She probably believes the (R)’s are coming for her SSDI … and other Democrat fantasies.

Wade
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2022 8:41 am

Propaganda works.

This also means that when this lady moves because she can no longer afford to live in New York, she will also vote for the exact same people who did this to her. And when the exact same results happen, she still will not make the connection and blame the republicans, instead of blaming the people who loudly, openly, and repeatedly say they want to ban fossil fuels. Because propaganda works.

Smart Rock
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2022 9:07 am

Go back and read the post again, markw

October 30, 2022 6:43 am

And the impact on global temperature………….. That’s right. None.

Steve Richards
October 30, 2022 7:00 am

“Since I am the daughter of the MC” MC =?

Good story though. We need lots like this to try and pry into the minds of the green evangelists.

Amos E. Stone
Reply to  Steve Richards
October 30, 2022 7:08 am

I assumed Manhattan Contrarian…

Kevin
Reply to  Steve Richards
October 30, 2022 7:48 am

The Master of Ceremonies or Middle Class?

Yes good story.

Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2022 7:05 am

“….no option but to convert our building away from its current gas heat system – which is quite reliable, only a few years old, and in fine working condition – to an electric heating system”

To abandon a “fine working” heating system is nuts. NY state could be a big producer of gas, which would greatly LOWER local heating costs, but it won’t allow drilling. Yuh, better to cover the state with expensive, hideous solar and wind “farms”- ruining the GREEN landscape- all to meet the demands of the fanatic climatistas.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2022 7:09 am

Will heat pumps even work in tall buildings?

Editor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 30, 2022 8:10 am

Yes, what sort of electric heating is required? Heat Pumps (with all that implies in terms of insulation and water storage) Electric radiators of one sort or another? A central hot air system?

Gums
Reply to  tonyb
October 30, 2022 9:57 am

Salute!

Well, excuse me, but where is the heat exchange medium that the heat pump uses to “heat” or “cool”? Way I understand it is like the full electric air conditioner using out side air compressors and noisy fan and…., we use electricity and pumping a refrigerant back and forth, then a fan and ducting inside our home/apartment to get hot or cold.

So how in the hell can you do all that in some large, multi-story apartment complex? For 4-plex or 6-plex plkaces in some suburbs, or even the motels with many rooms, I can see it due to their layout and access to the atmosphere. But down town in middle of all those other tall buildings and such, I have a problem.

I also wonder about the huge copper cables required to carry the volts and amps for the new electric demand, plus the chargeging stations for the electric vehicles.

Oh well, glad to be out and away from the crowd, but not way out.

Gums sends…

Steven Pfeiffer
Reply to  Gums
October 30, 2022 1:43 pm

Trying to convert a multi-unit building to air-to-air heat pumps would be some kind of nightmare.

If there are say, 50 individual condos, that would mean a minimum of 50 outdoor air-cooled condensing units that all have to be located somewhere – ground or roof, possibly balcony.

All that refrigerant piping has to be routed up or down and out, somehow.

Each outdoor unit and say three to five indoor units per condo all need electric circuits and wiring. Each indoor unit needs condensate drainage.

And oh by the way, the heat pump systems will each require 100% electric resistance heat backup, since heat pump performance drops off dramatically as the outdoor temperature drops.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 31, 2022 6:02 am

Mini-units mounted on outside walls. Think hotels. The key is they generally use the resistance part when it is below 40 degrees. $$$$$$$😭😭😭😭🤬🤬🤬

lee riffee
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2022 7:28 am

Sounds like they’d be better off keeping what they have and paying the fine – at least until they get some action in court.

Reply to  lee riffee
October 30, 2022 12:08 pm

The estimated fine would be under $950 a year
$150,000 for 160 apartments
But it could be increased if most people decide to just pay the fine.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 31, 2022 6:57 am

Not considering the finance costs, $2.5 million would let you pay the fines for 16 years to break-even. I’d guess that paying the fine in perpetuity would be cheaper, as long as they don’t raise it. And even if they did, as long as the increase stays under inflation, you might still come out ahead.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  lee riffee
November 1, 2022 1:31 pm

Better yet, refuse to pay the fine.

Kathy Saladin
October 30, 2022 7:06 am

this is an offer to con-tract, it is your right to refuse these non-essential services from these corporations. Form a PMA STAT.

Carlo, Monte
October 30, 2022 7:07 am

As usual, the insane dem watermelons accuse republicans of what they are guilty.

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 30, 2022 12:50 pm

If you aren’t careful, simon will declare you to be an extremist.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2022 1:23 pm

I am scared. Scared.

Old Man Winter
October 30, 2022 7:08 am

Ditch NYC/NY- they need Queens more than Queens needs them.
Except for Brooklyn, Queens & the rest of Long Island would make a great Ultra-MAGA state!

Last edited 3 months ago by Old Man Winter
ron long
October 30, 2022 8:06 am

Sorry about that, Jane Menton. But New York City (et al) also hates its wealthy persons, as they raised the tax rate on them, and; in 2020 70,000 wealthy left New York city, taking $34 billion in yearly income with them, that´s half a million each.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  ron long
October 30, 2022 9:59 am

The green loonies don’t care about how much money someone has, they just want them all to die.
Eventually everyone (except the chosen ones) will be poor, cold, and hungry. The wealthy will just hold out longer.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark
October 30, 2022 8:08 am

I have personally worked on LL97 issues (energy engineering). One item often missed.. NYC uses a “carbon footprint” rate for electricity that includes Indian Point nuclear power plant, which supplied 25% to 35% of power consumed by NYC. That plant shutdown in 2021 with its ‘zero-carbon’ power being made up via natural gas fired generation.

LL97 assumes in the future, electricity will be generated by a combination of Canadian hydropower, wind, solar, and battery storage. The first item requires building a HVDC line from Canada (hasn’t happened yet). If / when it is built, there is another issue: During really cold weather Hydro-Quebec is limited on how much power they can export due to domestic consumption spikes and lower hydro-power output. As discussed WUWT wind, solar, and batteries impossibility in providing reliable on-demand power.

So this means that “electrification” will actually increase the carbon-footprint of the facilities that converted from natural gas / district steam / COGEN to avoid the LL97 carbon footprint fines.

Unless you buy a Bloom Box fuel cell and keep your natural gas service. Bloom lobbied to get power generated by their natural gas fuel cells as counting as “zero-carbon”.

Mantis
October 30, 2022 8:11 am

Sorry that your city has been overrun by idiotic dangerous zealots and criminals, but the solution is not to argue with logic and reason, or to play their game and eat the costs. It won’t work, and it will only be the first of their changing the goalposts. The only solution is to leave. Who is John Galt.

Jimbobla
Reply to  Mantis
October 31, 2022 2:01 am

There is another solution, but it means employing suggestions made in The Declaration of Independence, which are all illegal, so yes, leaving is the only legal solution.

Old Man Winter
October 30, 2022 8:16 am

It won’t be long before NYC adds a pet carbon paw print tax, if they haven’t
already!

(BTW, pet carbon paw prints have already made the news.)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/26/its-your-pets-fault/

Reply to  Old Man Winter
October 30, 2022 8:39 am

AP NEW YORK CITY
November 9, 2022
In the ongoing effort to reduce the use of natural gas in New York City, the sale and consumption of baked beans has been outlawed by Mayor Adams’ executive order 427a.

SMC
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2022 9:29 am

Got a link to that? 🙂

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  SMC
October 31, 2022 7:01 am

Since the release date for the AP clip is 9 days in the future, I think Richard is funning us. Just sayin’.

DMacKenzie
October 30, 2022 8:42 am

Most likely you won’t have to change, just pay the fines to continue using natural gas. it is a favored approach by governments since fines aren’t taxes and fines aren’t tax deductible expenses….resulting in a major increase the money coming into the treasury rather than an energy deficient population which decreases money coming into the treasury….and increasing government income and increasing government control over the economy is at the primary goal of “climate legislation”….we are just detainees glad that they are sending us to the showers tomorrow.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 30, 2022 1:04 pm

A $100,000 per year fine spread over 160 apartments is $625 per year per apartment for the privilege of using natural gas rather than electricity for heating. The additional money spent by apartment owners on these fines are effectively a government surcharge on top of the larger increases in the price of natural gas which are a direct consequence of the government’s own war on carbon energy.

Ann Banisher
October 30, 2022 8:44 am

You might also want to look into your electrical service.
You can’t just add 160 heat pumps without upgrading you main service & transformers.
This requires more space, bigger wire and a cascade of costs that may be physically impossible to accomplish.

Kenji
October 30, 2022 8:47 am

The REAL question is: who gets to spend the fines? Into whose pockets will the fines be put? Whoever that is … eliminate them. Whatever entity that is … eliminate it.

David Long
October 30, 2022 8:54 am

Seems to me the math gives an obvious answer: plan to pay the fines.

strativarius
October 30, 2022 9:34 am

All New York needs now is someone like Sadiq Khan

Jack Frost
October 30, 2022 9:35 am

And I thought we had problems in Britain with the conversion to electric, just goes to show there’s always someone worse off.

Pat from kerbob
October 30, 2022 10:02 am

The most telling part of this article is the utter cluelessness of the tenant as to who is responsible for their woes.
This is common here in canada, most people don’t read or listen to the news but just stumble through life like zombies.
It’s this vacuousness that the Democrats (and Liberals) count on and it is the greatest threat to our security.

michel
October 30, 2022 10:04 am

And the truly insane thing is that this is being done ‘because climate’ when it will demonstrably have absolutely no effect on the climate. Even if all the electricity were to magically become available, and NYC CO2 emissions were to stop totally, the reduction would be tiny and would be anyway eaten up in a couple of days by China or India’s increases.

Same thing in the UK. Take everyone to EVs and heat pumps, while at the same time converting power generation to wind and solar. Which cannot even supply present demand, and will certainly not meet the EV and heat pump demand in addition. And which will have similarly negligible effects on global emissions.

Gums
Reply to  michel
October 30, 2022 11:46 am

Salute!

The sad part of the story is building many new power plants using gas and coal to get the electricity so the autos and buses in the cities will not “emit” the harmful greenhouse gases or other pollutants. So not just zero carbon input on the globe warming models, but more than just burning the gas in the vehicles. Ditto for heat pumps, especially up north when it gets below 40 deg many nights and days.

Guess the science is settled and we ought to have victory gardens for our tomatoes ….oops, folks in apartments in Queens are “s.o.l.” with no backyards.

Gonna be a very interesting next few years, huh?

Gums sends..

TonyG
October 30, 2022 11:36 am

You know, this is the Republicans’ fault and the Democrats are too cowardly to stand up to them.”

How can you possibly get through with some reality to someone who believes that?
And there are so many of them 🙁

Liardet Guy
October 30, 2022 12:41 pm

Healthy pushback

Bob
October 30, 2022 1:36 pm

You guys need to get the names of all the people on these committees and councils. Make them public regularly and make public how each member voted regularly. When the coop members start having to move out because they can’t afford their apartment remind them which individuals have forced them out. Likewise when they are freezing their butts off during winter or melting during summer heat remind them with a list of all the committee members or council members who brought all this on them. These people need to be held personally responsible.

Joel
October 30, 2022 7:47 pm

When this crazy law was being enacted where were these queens residents then? No doubt thoroughly engaged in
collective anti trump hatred. They’re so stupid they have to actually experience the consequences before they understand the problem. Where were they when Como closed Indian Point power plant? These people aren’t worth my time.

Joel
October 30, 2022 8:35 pm

Here is why your vote (American citizen in Queens) doesn’t mean anything. You have just been disenfranchised by the Democratic party.
These non-citizens will only care about benefits and sanctuary city status. They could care less if you, American citizen in Queens, has to pay more for your power in the coming years.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/politics/nyc-noncitizens-local-elections-voting-rights/index.html

Roger Tilbury
October 31, 2022 6:23 am

Pay the fine. 150k shared by 160 apartments is $39/m by my calculation. Half the price of the upgrade. MIght seem a lot, but better than the alternative and you’ll still have heat in winter when the electricity fails.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Roger Tilbury
November 1, 2022 3:39 pm

Not unless you have a generator so the thermostats and electric ignition all work.

Sean
October 31, 2022 9:14 am

The math of the $150K fine for 160 units works out to a little less than $1000 per household. The state of California currently has a similar level of fee in their gas prices. Gasoline costs nearly $2 more per gallon than the rest of the country. Households with 2 cars, each driving 12,000 annually getting 30 Mpg pay an extra $800 per vehicle for transportation.

ResourceGuy
October 31, 2022 1:17 pm

Climate cannon fodder

370H55V I/me/mine
November 1, 2022 2:39 pm

The NYC council includes 31 women and only 20 men. The truth is whatever they believe it to be (and ditto even the GOP contingent–3 and 2).

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights