"CONCLUSION:
I believe that a major problem with meeting the 2030 target is that permitting and construction will slow the deployment of solar and on-shore wind.
I reviewed wind and solar project applications for New York’s Article 10 permitting process to get an idea of the magnitude of development for the bracketing scenarios.
Based on the solar applications between 19,000 and 56,000 acres and between 6 and 18 million solar panels will be needed for the solar scenarios.
The wind applications suggest that between 15 and 25 projects with 60 turbines at each site and that between 900 and 1,500 3.3 MW turbines will be needed for the on-shore wind scenarios.
The off-shore wind project information is too scanty at this point to develop similar information but the infrastructure needed to build off-shore wind also has to be developed before construction can commence.
This many projects with such extensive scopes inevitably fail to meet schedules.
While the results shown suggest that meeting the 2030 target can be met in two out of four scenarios there is a big issue with the approach used.
Replacing fossil and Indian Point annual energy output with intermittent wind and solar energy output is not a one for one energy substitution.
While a wind turbine can provide a certain amount of energy during a year, it is not dispatchable.
Because the total annual load is based on the sum of varying loads over hours, days and seasons,
much more intermittent wind and solar capacity is needed to replace the dispatchable capacity that produced historical energy
and maintain a reliable system that provides electricity whenever and wherever it is needed.
The real test of feasibility is to determine the amount of solar and wind necessary to meet the worst case situation – a wintertime wind lull when both wind and solar generate minimal levels of power.
Therefore, do not believe any claims for feasibility that are based only on annual energy output.
Despite the supposed urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions, the Cuomo Administration shut down Indian Point nuclear station which generated about 12% of the total energy used to produce electricity in the state.
In order to replace that energy four times as much wind capacity as currently exists has to be developed or all of the off-shore wind currently under development has to be dedicated for replacement.
Until such time as the renewable resources to replace the lost nuclear are developed, fossil fueled energy or imported energy has to pick up the necessary load.
In this projection it was assumed that imported energy picked up the load but it is likely that fossil will replace much of the load because of transmission constraints to New York City and Long Island.
At the end of the day this illustrates one hypocritical aspect of the New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and New York energy policy.
The CLCPA includes nuclear generation in the definition of acceptable “renewable” sources of electricity.
The CLCPA is supposed to protect New Yorkers from the existential threat of climate change but New York energy policy retired nearly 2,000 MW of acceptable renewable power when Indian Point was retired.
If the threat of climate change is so pressing how can that be justified?
DETAILS:
So as to determine the feasibility of two targets in New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA)
I looked at annual energy use data primarily from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Patterns and Trends
– New York State Energy Profiles: 2003-2017 (“Patterns and Trends”) document.
The two targets considered are: 70 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040.
I have written extensively on implementation of the CLCPA because I believe the solutions proposed are not feasible with present technology,
will adversely affect affordability and reliability, that wind and solar deployment will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change,
and, at the end of the day, meeting the targets cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.
Background
... In my first article I explained that Patterns and Trends data showed that in 2017 some 30% of the electricity generated in the state came from fossil fuels and that nuclear provided 32%.
In 2017, hydro provided 18%, municipal solid waste, biomass and geothermal provided 2%, solar had yet to show any significant generation and wind provided 3%.
The CLCPA defines renewable energy sources as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro and nuclear so recent trends in those sources are important to determine feasibility of the 2030 goal.
New York Historical Energy Source Calculations
Figure 1 (below) lists the percentage trend of the sources of electric generation in New York State (NYS) from 2001 to 2022.
Because the Patterns and Trends report only goes to 2017 I had to use data from other sources.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) documentation of load and capacity report was used to get historical data to 2020 for most categories but EPA Clean Air Markets Division data was used for fossil emissions.
For the 2021 and 2022 projections I used historical average data or, in the case of renewables, made other assumptions.
In order to determine the feasibility of the 70% renewable by 2030 target these data list four source categories: fossil fuels, imports, nuclear and all the other categories lumped together as CLCPA renewables.
I broke out nuclear to show the impact of the retirement of Indian Point nuclear station.
The CLCPA renewables categories includes biomass and municipal waste generation that I think may not be acceptable as CLCPA renewable at the end of the day but for now they are included.
In 2001, nuclear provided 28% of the energy and other CLCPA renewable sources another 16% for a total of 44%.
Fossil fuels provided over half the energy and imported energy made up the remaining 5%.
In 2020, nuclear provided 30%, down from the high of 32%, other CLCPA renewable sources provided 24% for a total of 54% of CLCPA renewable energy, fossil was down to 32%, and imports up to 15%.
I project that in 2022, the retirement of Indian Point will reduce nuclear down to 21% and that other CLCPA renewable sources will increase to 30% for a total of 51% of CLCPA renewable energy.
The assumption that fossil fuel use will decrease reduces its share to 29%, but increases imports to 20%. ... "