The headline of this post is the same headline as appears in today’s New York Daily News as a big banner spanning pages 26 and 27 of the print edition, which are the main op-ed pages. Those two pages then contain two op-eds taking opposite positions on the future of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, which the Daily News refers to as the “Climate Statute.” The column on page 26 is by Emily Gallagher and Kim Fraczek, with the headline “Getting to affordable, clean energy solutions.” On page 27 the headline is “We have to rethink the state’s climate act”; the by-line is Jane Menton. Both pieces are behind the Daily News’s paywall, although it appears that you can get through it by paying them $1 for an introductory subscription. In my case, when I found out that Jane’s piece was running I went out and splurged $3.50 for the print version.
Comparison of the two pieces will provide a look into the quality of the debate going on in New York over the supposed energy transition.
Both op-eds start by noting the recent news in New York that State officials have publicly recognized that the upcoming 2030 deadlines set out in the Climate Act are not going to be met. The two articles then take opposite views as to what should happen next. As indicated by the headline, Jane’s piece argues that “we have to rethink” the Climate Act. The view of Gallagher and Fraczek is that we need to double down.
I’ll start by describing Jane’s piece. The arguments in the piece will be familiar to regular readers here. But first I should mention that despite the by-line Jane only had a small role in writing the piece. The main author was Roger Caiazza, the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. Roger and I (along with Richard Ellenbogen) have recently collaborated on a Report on the unworkability of the Climate Act, described in my post here, and we have also been working partly together and partly on our own, and partly with Jane, to get op-eds published discussing these ideas. Roger initially wrote and submitted this piece as an op-ed to the Daily News, but at first they declined to run it on the ground that they had recently published another piece by Roger. Then they asked if Roger could re-submit the piece over a different by-line. Jane volunteered, and Roger graciously agreed to forego the credit. (It’s a good thing that I did not volunteer. So far I have a 100% rejection rate for various op-eds that I have submitted to our local papers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York Post.). So the piece ultimately ran with only minor changes from what Roger had written.
The basic point of the Jane/Roger piece is that New York is not meeting the mandates of the Climate Act because providing the required electricity from renewable sources simply cannot be done. The piece cites three recent Reports from the Public Service Commission, from the New York Independent System Operator, and from the New York State Comptroller, all setting forth the insurmountable obstacles.
- The Public Service Commission Report sets forth the quantity of electricity that would be needed to achieve the 2030 mandate, and finds that the rate of approval and construction of facilities is not nearly sufficient to supply the needed quantities of power. (The PSC Report does not even get to the question of whether, if somehow infinite amounts of wind and solar facilities could be built, the electricity would come at times where it could be matched to demand.)
- The Comptroller’s Report points out that the whole Climate Act energy transition thing is going on without anyone ever having done a study of how much this is going to cost.
- And finally, there is the NYISO Report, which does address the issue of whether intermittent wind and sun generation can match demand, and concludes that there is a need for a large amount of what they call the “DEFR” (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource). The DEFR is a magical source of generation that does not exist in the real world.
From the Jane/Roger op-ed:
The glaring problem here? These [DEFR] technologies simply do not exist yet on a commercial scale, and certainly will not be available to fulfill the purpose of substituting for slow to implement renewable energy sources.
And the conclusion:
Taken as a whole, these reports, from three official and credible sources, suggest that there will be insurmountable reliability risks for the Climate Act transition. It is time for a reevaluation.
Now let’s look at the other side. The people writing for the other side are Emily Gallagher and Kim Fraczek. Ms. Gallagher is a State Assemblymember from the Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn (a relatively affluent area just across the river from Manhattan), while Ms. Fraczek is Director of a climate/energy advocacy group called the Sane Energy Project.
If you think that these two might actually address the question of how the proposed energy transition is supposed to work from an engineering standpoint, don’t kid yourself. Instead, the gist is to accuse the existing utilities of “racism” in operation of their system and of spewing toxicity to poison the people. Excerpt:
The governor must act now to regain New York’s position as a climate leader. . . . Our climate law was passed to ensure inclusivity in a historically racist energy system. National Grid [the gas utility in Brooklyn], thus, has admittedly left disadvantaged communities out of its equation. . . . The governor must debunk National Grid’s explanation for outsized utility bill hikes and act to forestall the company’s proposed rate increases.
Where will the power come from for the energy transition? Here is the proposal of Gallagher and Fraczek:
[S]ince the private market is failing us, the governor . . . has an opportunity to direct the New York Power Authority, the largest state public power utility in America providing some of the lowest-cost electricity in the nation, to build 15 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030 and shutting down the peaker power plants that run on toxic fracked gas.
But how about the problem that wind and solar only provide part-time power that does not match customer demand? How about the need for a DEFR? No mention of those things here. The conclusion:
[W]e should invest in cost-effective, energy-efficient upgrades. By transitioning away from expensive and potentially dangerous gas systems rooted in 19th-century technology, we can create healthier, more comfortable living spaces for all.
This is the quality of the thinking that we are dealing with.
I guess I give the Daily News — generally a left-wing paper — credit for publishing the Jane/Caiazza piece. But so far, the Gallagher/Fraczek argument is what gets you elected in Brooklyn. The question is whether those people can be awakened before the blackouts hit.
“should invest in cost-effective, energy-efficient upgrades”
So, NOT wind or solar. !
That leaves COAL, GAS, NUCLEAR…. I doubt a lot of hydro is possible.
And they don’t have the farmland available for unicorn fart harvesting.
China thinks it’s wind and solar
https://www.carbonbrief.org/critical-turning-point-for-coal-poses-risks-for-chinas-state-power-firms-says-report/
We get more useful energy out of renewables than fossil fuels
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/we-get-more-useful-energy-out-of-renewables-than-fossil-fuels/
Looks like a cost-effective, energy-efficient upgrade to me.
Oh. Ember an advocacy group for renewables. 😉
Ember is the climate propaganda outfit which was the source of the Labour Party claim that building wind farms would save the average British household £300 per year. This figure was fabricated by Ember which demonstrates Ember’s complete lack of credibility.
China DO NOT think it is wind and solar.
Their energy use from wind and solar is minimal at best.
You are a LIAR, reading low-level propaganda sites.
You’d be really upset if you could see where the energy sector is heading.
The Cleantech Revolution | It’s exponential, disruptive, and now
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/06/RMI-Cleantech-Revolution-pdf.pdf
Even Trump supports electric vehicles now 😉
Renewables are rapidly transforming grid systems into unstable erratic non-supply systems.
RMI is just another PAID FOR PROPAGANDA far-left shill./
Reality…..
Bing Videos
Trump is TOTALLY AGAINST MANDATES, and EV subsidies.
Another complete FAIL from the ultimate LUSER
As spineless as vance. What a pair.
roflmao.
What didn’t you understand about the comment
“I am for them for a SMALL slice”
“Totally against mandates”
You are nothing but an amorphous, mindless blob.
Basic logic is not part of what little brain activity you might once have possessed.
Meanwhile that rmi fantasy propaganda pap you linked to….
Bond.. accountant.. ZERO science
Sloss.. MA.. ZERO science
Walter… you will like this one.. .. studies NUCLEAR ENERGY, then got infected by the renewables disease.
Basically just a bunch of LUSERS. !
https://youtu.be/xBgSDNTtM48?t=163
That’s not what he said, braindead scum.
The image at the top of that link- with a solar “farm” covering hills. That’s what environmentalists now love and think will save the planet? How f*ucking stupid is that? Where do you see anything about Trump and EVs? In your wet dreams?
You know I down vote you without even reading your comment these days?
In reality there is no transition happening https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-6-25-this-energy-transition-thing-really-is-not-happening
Unfortunately, 95% of the population read and believe those low-level propaganda sites.
Wind and solar are not cost-effective, nor are the energy-efficient.
They require massive subsidies and mandates and political idiocy to even exist.
They require massive back-up by reliable power supplies.
They are a massive waste of materials and a massive drain on society and are massively destructive of the environment.
They are erratic and unsustainable, and act as a parasite on any electrical supply grid they infect.
Either a troll or an idiot. Maybe speak Chinese?
Either ???… you meant “both a troll and an idiot“ didn’t you. !
China touts its renewables as a way to increase demand for its solar panels. They are in no way replacing fossil power with solar.
The photo of a solar “farm” on your last link- which I’ve copied here- notice all the vegetation under it. Who is going to manage that? A farmer? no way. It’s going to be expensive to periodically chop it all down or more likely use herbicides to kill it with poison. Maybe a farmer claims he will manage it at no cost to the company owning the solar panels, but don’t believe it- unless he’s growing poppies for opium. 🙂
JZ
They could just do aerial spraying (“crop dusting”), not like the residue would cause a problem with the panels, right?
More evidence you don’t understand what you post.
Wind and solar can produce cheap power, but it is unpredictable and not worth much. Making that power reliable, and available on demand, is very costly.
It’s only cheap because it isn’t worth anything. Which is why the producers of it often have to pay someone to take it, all subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers with the government taking from both at gunpoint.
No utility would VOLUNTARILY buy a watt of power from wind and solar generation without being FORCED to by the government.
Any more than a driver would buy a car that could only be driven when the wind is blowing within a specified range of speeds and in the direction of travel.
Do not feed the trolls. It only encourages them.
China thinks it’s coal.
“Li forecast China would add 40 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power plant capacity in 2024. That is down slightly from previous forecasts, he said. The U.S.-based Global Energy Monitor said that 47.4GW of new coal power plants came online in China in 2023.May 22, 2024”
Yeah, China is really committed to wind and solar. LOL.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinese-coal-group-cuts-2024-output-forecast-2024-05-22/#:~:text=Li%20forecast%20China%20would%20add,online%20in%20China%20in%202023.
G’Day bnice2000
“I doubt a lot of hydro is possible.”
Westinghouse set up a power plant at Niagara Falls. There’s still a lot of water coming over the falls. Use it all for hydro.
The tourist industry? Tough…..
Only really a small amount, compared to demand, though.
IIRC they put the water over the falls during “tourist” time and season, and use the hydro at other times.
Fair enough. The only time I was in that area was a service call, American Airlines freight terminal, Buffalo. That would have been in the early 70’s. Never got off the airport, patches of snow on the tarmac. Memories…..
The Gallagher/Fraczek op-ed is wonderfully delusional. They think that if a goal is set, it will magically happen. They have no understanding of how the world (or anything) actually works. Unfortunately, this mindset is increasingly common among the elite who like to tell we peasants what to do and think. We are doomed.
As was said about a year or two ago in such an article, “… it will just take a bit of engineering.” The ignorance and condescension was, and still is, offensive.
I still run into that in my engineering department. “Well just order some more motors!” Except the motors in question are no longer manufactured, and no contractors want to make 40 year old technology components, especially at miniscule profit margins. The system needs to be upgraded to the 21st century, but that costs time and money.
The present system was created by old white men and will be fixed by less aged, less gender defined multi-culturalism. Problem solved and old white men can go to their grave feeling the shame of promoting stuff that worked.
The only thing different since Pharaoh said “So let it be written, so let it be done” is passing a bill instead of just saying it. Last thing politicians and bureaucrats want is to actually fix problems and put themselves out of work.
Bill,
For years I have tried to work out the processes of the minds of people like Gallagher and Fraczek. I have failed. I have considered that they are simply not interested enough in the topic to think it through. That they do not understand the topic and cover their ignorance by composing simplistic arguments. That they have intellectual or political differences with the Mentions and Caiazzas of this world. That they have to have backers if their positions are threatened or voters if elections are involved and so they say what the backers suggest. That this New York case involves a lot of money, attracting fringe scavengers to fight for the loose change. That Mafia-like bodies are involved and are calling shots.
Any of these sound plausible?
The modern difficulty is the wall of silence that is now used when a decent explanation is required. Have these authors been asked to explain their preferences? Are they responsive? Are they required to explain uncertainties in their statements to date?
All of this gets so full of questions seeking answers that I have to conclude that the chosen people are of inadequate calibre to hold the jobs they have. This type of problem has become so common that I have to suspect systemic failure of modern educational systems, and of promotional systems where once ability and experience and intelligence were regarded as important.
What a mess, what a huge looming cost of failure.
Geoff S
Yesterday press release:
Governor Hochul Announces Upcoming Convening of Global Experts to Discuss Expanding Clean Energy in New York’s Growing Economy
What are the odds that any of the issues raised in this quote will be addressed:
“The modern difficulty is the wall of silence that is now used when a decent explanation is required. Have these authors been asked to explain their preferences? Are they responsive? Are they required to explain uncertainties in their statements to date?”
My bet is that the “global experts” at the NY show will be the usual suspects and that no decent explanation, admission of preferences, responsive answers or admission of uncertainties will be included.
Conspicuous in its absence will be any mention of the missing unicorns, er, “DEFRs,” that are supposed to prop up this mass stupidity during the more-often-than-not times when the wind and Sun do NOT provide the required energy.
But, but, but…. Meritocracy is White Male Supremacy!
So we have been told over and over and over and over again.
“They think that if a goal is set, it will magically happen” perfectly summarizes their beliefs.
The mindset is directly coupled to i situations of so-called “education” that indoctrinate instead of educate their students.
It is a lack of critical thinking skills that allows such a stupid notion to be advanced.
It would be so much easier, quicker, cheaper and just as effective to pass a law regulating the weather directly – à la “Camelot”.
Wait. That’s the perfect response to bureaucrats and politicians. “We have the solution for green, renewable energy. We can provide all your energy needs 24-7 using our latest wind turbines. Besides funding us, the only thing you need to do is pass, and ENFORCE, a law requiring an easterly wind to blow at ALL TIMES at speeds between 25 and 40 mph. If you make that happen, we can guarantee our meeting your energy requirements. If the voters don’t have the clean energy they desire, it will be because government failed to do its part.”
Combined cycle gas turbines are most definitely NOT “19th century solutions”
Burning stuff to heat water for electricity is sooo 19th century. It’s basically a steam engine 😛
And I’m quite sure they mean home appliances – you don’t have a ccgt at home, haven’t you?
Water heating for coffee tea etc is either electricity from coal or gas, or gas.
Solar hot water always needs a back-up booster, usually electricity.
NO-ONE ANYWHERE has wind powered only, hot water.
Many people DO have instantaneous GAS for showers etc.
Solar hot water CANNOT provide hot water for tea or coffee.. and wind certainly can’t be relied on to do so.
Don’t tell us you heat your water by blowing CO2 over the top of it. !
I bet you are totally reliant on fossil fuels for your hot beverages.
“Burning stuff” for heating water has been there all your pathetic life, and will continue for many many decades into the future.
There is no reliable alternative except Nuclear.
A gas turbine does not depend on heating water to generate electricity. It is only done with the exhaust from the gas turbine and that increases the efficiency combined cycle unit to 50-60%.
Nice of MYN to prove he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about…………again.
Much more 21st century to cover millions of acres with solar panels?
What shape wheels do you use? Round is soooo old and out of date.
Try thinking before you post.
He did. It didn’t work out. Hurt too much.
Power from wind is so 8th century.
Windmills are 8th century technology. Go eff yourself.
Do not feed the trolls. They enjoy it and it encourages them.
“Burning stuff” is the only reason you have food, shelter, clothing, transport or all the other things you take for granted in modern civilization.
And the fracked natural gas that fuels the CCGT’s is most definitely NOT “toxic” either.
We don’t talk about the huge quantities of water needed and getting polluted.
That’s because it doesn’t get polluted, any more than the water used in a coal plant gets polluted.
But I know you will not bother with the facts.
The REAL pollution comes from the massive amount of toxic chemicals used to mine and manufacture the components of wind and solar.
And the environmental devastation in their implementation
Then the huge amount of garbage and toxic crap from their short-life removal into landfill etc.
What is it like being a collaborator, Luser?
A traitor to western human society, working with those that want to destroy it.
My only offering is to make certain you have plenty of blankets.
Australia has the distinct advantage that there are very few places where people actually live getting so cold that people will die unless there is some heating appliance.
Much of the inhabited northern hemisphere gets cold enough to kill people unless they have means of heating their abode. New York is possibly on the margin if you rug up when the chill comes.
The high population density works against making you own power like those living in rural areas can easily do.
When New York runs out of quayside space and gas lines to moor and fuel power barges you know the end of the insanity is in sight.
Power barges are relatively easy and fast to deploy. New York already relies on them so a few more will not be an issue unless there is not enough space or gas to fuel them. Of course there may be other jurisdictions seeking the same solution and China can only build so much stuff to keep the rest of thee world pursuing their fantasies.
Just realised that there may be a few diesel fuelled power barges available from Bangladesh now that they have their new coal plants up and running and Nuclear plant not far off. Got their first fuel shipment from Moscow late last year so must be close to production by now..
If New York can defer the inevitable for a few more years they could be in line to take advantage of China’s nuclear power barges. It appears they are not far off having the two prototypes in operation. But that could mean 5 years before commercial units.
Yes and China will install the remote triggered self-destruct mechanisms for free!
“The high population density works against making you own power like those living in rural areas can easily do.”
Nothing like having 5-10 cords of seasoned firewood stacked up next to your home.
When New York starts experiencing major blackouts we will finally have a chance of getting people to understand reality. Until then they will listen to “experts”. I’m glad it’s New York volunteering for the pain.
New York is possibly on the margin for needing home heating is not accurate. From a distance New York is New York City but even there the mean minimum average temperature in January is 24 deg F. Saranac Lake in the Adirondacks has a mean minimum average temperature in January of 2 deg F. When this nonsense implodes people will die.
Maybe it would be better for all to be given a trial run of the Gallagher/Fraczek treatment so that there is no doubt about the right way forward.
Australia Post catches the Air NZ disease-
Australia Post dumps commitment to carbon neutral deliveries (msn.com)
The lefty woke elites aren’t getting nervous about the deplorables in the streets are they? Or is it just the realization that struggletown can’t keep wearing the inflationary outcomes?
I just have to say KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK to Francis Menton, Jane Menton, Roger Caiazza, and others who know how to take down the CLCPA lunacy with data and good reasoning.
bingo!
“The Comptroller’s Report points out that the whole Climate Act energy transition thing is going on without anyone ever having done a study of how much this is going to cost.”
For that, somebody should be held criminally responsible. Same going on here in Wokeachusetts where nobody wants ANY wind turbines on land- and now the most radical climatistas don’t want solar “farms” except on “brown fields”. They think wind at sea and covering every building in the state with solar panels and every parking lot will bring us to net zero nirvana and then we’ll have super cheap, clean and green energy.
“historically racist energy system”
utterly absurd! No electricity in Harlem?
Must be a woke two tier electricity system too-
‘Deeply worrying’: Lack of media coverage of the riots in the UK (msn.com)
The supreme smugness at the end crashing and burning is priceless
The hardest they will hit the wall of reality the better they will learn.
The expectation that some people will “wake up” is based on the assumption they are sleeping. It could be they are simply “brain dead”.
Be it politics, social construct, or climate change the Liberal approach is always bash the other guy and never offer real solutions.
The Daily News should indeed be congratulated and celebrated for publishing side-by-side editorials featuring both sides of the NY Climate Statute issue. The Daily News appears to have bent over backwards to make it possible to publish the contrarian view, even asking for a different “by line” ….. What other NY City newspaper would do as much?
The readers are then treated to a reasoned, factual viewpoint against which to compare the unicorns-and-rainbows viewpoint of Gallagher/Fraczek argument.
Don’t sell the general public short — some percentage of them will see the difference and have their viewpoints moved, if even a little bit, in the direction of energy sanity.
And, of course, heaps of credit to Roger and Francis for their terrific and continuing work!
From article:”… gas systems rooted in 19th-century technology,…”.
Gallagher/Fraczek want do away with 19th century tech and put in 15th century tech.
S
Let’s look at some data. Here’s a plot of NY wind, commercial solar and natural gas generation. There are four major things to notice:
Solar and gas generation sources are increasing, but gas is increasing faster, not as a percentage, but in terms of total generation.
Peak gas power generation in July 2023 was 8 GWh/month which is 51% higher than the peak winter (Jan 2024) consumption of 5.3 GWh/month.
Solar and Wind are nicely out of phase with solar peaking at 0.286 GWh/month in July 2023.
The trends do not suggest that renewables are likely to intercept fossil fuels anytime soon. This is true even when including non-commercial solar (not shown).
In California, where solar irradiance is at least 50% higher than in NY, a typical solar plant produces about 0.26 GWh/year/acre. In NY then one might expect less than 0.15 GWh/year/acre.
Total NY electricity generation from gas in 2023 was 59,914 GWh. Without considering the peaks, to replace this with solar would require 400,000 acres (625 square miles) of commercial solar generation, or an area twice the size of NYC and its five boroughs, or about 6% of New York’s 6.65 million acres of farmland. This doesn’t include land required for new transmission lines.
Since energy plants are often described by their nameplate rating, and the solar capacity factor is about 25% (in CA). 60,000 GWh/year would imply a total new capacity of 27,400 MW — 60,000 / (365 day/year) / (24 hours/day) / (0.25 capacity factor).
For comparison, offshore wind projects were planning for 9,000MW by 2035. Offshore wind capacity factors are closer to 40%, at least in the UK. So if these projects succeed, then production could reach 30,000 GWh/year. However, three of the contracts (4000 MW) were recently canceled leaving only 17,000 GWh/year of potential production.
I forgot to mention. You can easily create these plots for whatever fuel, region, time you want. Visit https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/ then click on the filter order button. You can adjust time lines using the sliders next to the annual, monthly, daily button selection.
Like anything this large and sweeping we need a small scale proof of concept. I suggest switching New York Transit to entirely and only Climate Act compliance practices. In about 5 years we can expect them to have a viable transition plan and a price tag about 1/4th the final eventual true cost. Subway shutdowns should a regular occurance shortly thereafter.
We can’t wait for them to wake up, we need to wake them up. Them waking up is the wrong terminology, these monsters know exactly what they are doing. They need to be told we know they are lying to us. We know who they are and if their actions cause harm they are going to be held personally responsible. The time for giving them a pass is past.
The good news is massive price increases are likely to come before blackouts.