NY Governor Cuomo goes for clean power technology in a big way

 

Aerial photo of Con Edison East River power plant
14th St. East River Con Edison power plant, Manhattan, NYC (looking NW), Midtown in background. Image: Wikipedia

About 57% of New York state’s electricity is generated by power stations that burn fossil fuels. Nineteen of them — ranging in capacity from 22 to 2336 MW — are located in New York City, four in Manhattan. Emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, plus a multitude of other hazardous pollutants that damage human health. Many New Yorkers live next door to these plants. For example, the photo above shows the proximity of Stuyvesant Town to Con Edison’s 736-MW East River power plant.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, spurred by the need to take action on the health and climate effects of burning fossil fuels, announced on January 20 his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state. The goal of the plan is 100% clean electric power by 2040, the commitment to become state law. The plan will focus on building more land-based wind and solar plants, and on targeting the states offshore wind potential.

The following bar chart shows NY State energy consumption for 2016 (latest available). Natural gas is the primary fossil fuel used to produce the state’s electricity.

Bar chart showing NY State energy consumption

To get an idea of the magnitude of the task set by Governor Cuomo, the table below shows the clean power capacity in megawatts needed to replace all the fossil fuel amounts shown in the bar chart (Btu to MWh to MW x 0.9%):

Natural Gas + Coal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,000 MW
Motor Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,000 MW
All other fossil fuels . . . . . . . . . . . .18,000 MW

The 42,000 MW of electricity from natural gas is the focus of Cuomo’s green plan. In fossil fuel terms, to provide that much power from scratch would require building 50 to 60 power plants of the size shown in the photo above. Instead, the task will require building wind and solar farms. For example, if offshore wind was the only source of clean power, at least 3,500 wind turbines rated at 12 MW each would be needed to generate the 42,000 MW of electricity. By comparison, the capacity of European offshore wind farms (operational and under construction) now stands at about 21,000 MW, with another 20,000 MW on the drawing board. The map below shows where New York’s offshore wind farms will be sited. Statoil (now called Aquinor) is considering a 2,000 MW wind farm for its leased area, the grey-shaded part of Hudson North.

Map showing offshore wind lease areas off New York
New York Bight offshore wind lease areas. Image: BOEM

Governor Cuomo’s plan does not specifically mention motor gasoline. As the transition is made from gasoline to electric cars, at least 19,000 MW in additional clean electrical generation capacity will eventually be required. My guess is that a significant chunk of that capacity will be met by home or community based solar panels. The other fossil products such as distillates (e.g. diesel fuel) and jet fuel are not even mentioned in the plan.

It’s sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved while continuing to burn fossil fuels. We (all animals) exhale CO2 with every breath. That CO2 is captured by growing plants during photosynthesis. To stay alive, we eat the plants (and the flesh of animals that also live on plants) and so regain the carbon lost to the atmosphere while breathing. That is our basic carbon-neutral economy. When we began to release CO2 by burning fossil fuels, that basic economy was thrown out of kilter. Result: the greenhouse effect and global warming. The only way to re-create a carbon neutral economy is to stop burning fossil fuels. Governor Cuomo is on the right track. He summarizes his plan in the following YouTube video (1 min 42 sec).

 

 

Offshore Wind — Why drilling for offshore oil is dumb

Photo of Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas
Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas. Image: Deepwater Wind

The amount of energy generated by America’s offshore winds last year, exceeded by more than four times the total amount of energy consumed by the nation’s people and industry in the same year.  Only a tiny fraction of that wind resource has been harnessed commercially so far. The following map shows average wind speeds off U.S. coasts at a height of 100 meters and extending to the country’s 200 nautical-mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). The richest wind areas (fastest wind speeds) are off the N. California and New England coasts.

Map showing U.S. offshore wind speeds
Offshore wind speeds. Image from 2016 NREL study of U.S. offshore wind energy resources

The country’s first offshore wind farm became fully operational December 2016. It lies 3 miles SE of Block Island RI. The electricity it generates is delivered by sub-sea cable, first to a substation on Block Island, then on to the Rhode Island mainland where it connects to the state’s electrical grid. Operated by Deepwater Wind Co., the 30 Megawatt (MW) wind farm consists of 5 wind turbines, each rated at 6 MW. Together, they generate annually about 125 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of clean energy, enough to serve about 17,000 households. Ørsted, the Danish wind company, acquired Deepwater in 2018 for a reported $510 million.

Offshore wind farms are set to become common features along the NE coast in the coming decade. The Rhode Island wind farm is the pioneer. To see it, take a day trip to Block Island. If you’re driving between NYC and Boston, exit the I-95 at Hwy RI-138 (about 30 miles south of Providence); head east to Kingston. In Kingston turn right at Hwy RI-108 (traffic lights but no sign) and head south to Galilee and the Pt. Judith ferry terminal. Park your car at the ferry terminal (the ferry does carry vehicles). The Ferry departs for New Shoreham, Block Island, four times each day, year round. The trip, port to port, takes 55 minutes (scheduled). Rent a bike in New Shoreham, ride 15 minutes south (or walk the 1.8 miles) to Mohegan Bluffs. The wind farm’s five turbines are located about 3 miles to the SE, clearly visible from the island.

Map showing location of Deepwater Wind farm SE of Block Island RI
Deepwater Wind. Image: Landfall Navigation

Construction of the first large-scale offshore wind project, an 800 MW, 84 unit farm, will likely begin this year. The project is owned by New Bedford MA based Vineyard Wind Co., a 50-50 partnership Between Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners  and Avangrid Renewables. The array of wind turbines will be located about 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard MA (see map below). At that distance, the wind turbines will not be visible from land. The project will deliver electricity to Massachusetts for an initial price of 6.5 cents per KW hour, the price to rise by 2.5% year subsequently.

Map showing offshore Vineyard Wind lease area
Vineyard Wind lease area. Image credit: vineyard Wind website

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) 2016 study ‘Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States’, the Gross Resource Potential of the country’s offshore winds (excluding Alaska) is 10,800 GW. Of that amount, 2058 GW is listed as Technical Resource Potential, that is, the amount that could be harnessed today using currently available technology. Areas of the offshore wind zone that are not considered technically available at the present time include: areas where the depth is greater than  1,000 m (3281 ft); areas where the average wind speed is less than 7 m/second; shipping lanes; marine protected areas.

The existing electricity generating capacity of the U.S. is 1072 GW (2017). Of that, about 64% or 646 GW is generated by fossil fuel plants. The electricity from those polluting plants could be replaced three times over by clean electricity generated from Technical Resource offshore wind. The Trump administration is promoting offshore oil/gas exploration. What is the justification for spending billions hunting for fossil energy offshore while clean, cheaper, renewable energy blows past the rigs needed to do the drilling? There isn’t one. As electric cars displace fossil powered cars in the coming years, more clean electricity will be needed, not more petroleum.

Memo:
1 Kilowatt (KW) = 1,000 Watts
1 Megawatt (MW) = 1,000 KW = 1,000,000 Watts
1 Gigawatt (GW) = 1,000 MW = 1,000,000,000 Watts

Oil Industry promoters want to pay Americans not to complain about global warming

Photo of oil derricks, Long Beach CA in 1937
Oil derricks, Long Beach CA in 1937. Image: Lib. Of Congress

Every national government in the world knows that burning fossil fuels is a practice that’s killing us. All 197 UNFCCC member countries have either signed or acceded to the Paris Agreement dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the production of oil and gas continues unabated. The following table shows the production from the largest producers: the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. alone has increased its production by about 55% since 2008

U.S. EIA chart showing oil and gas production

Global warming is the disease. Stopping fossil fuel production is the cure. Reducing production might at least help the patient survive. So why haven’t the producers acted? Because no legislation exists anywhere to force them to act. Nor is such legislation likely to appear anytime soon; politicians the world over dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry. In the few countries where setting a price on carbon emissions is being tried, the taxes are set too low for the effects to work back to the producers of the fuel.

The fossil fuel industry’s business model is similar to the one used by the drug trade: push the product; saturate the market; keep the users hooked. Direct or indirect political involvement is a given. The equivalent of the drug kingpins are the guys running or controlling the world’s Oil and Gas companies: Exxon, Gazprom, BP, Aramco, Shell, to name a few. The pushers are all the entities that stand to gain from the industry’s continued existence. They range from nation states and oil companies down to the industry’s bottom feeders: bought politicians; co-opted scientists; paid lobbyists; etc. A formidable array.

American Fossil fuel pushers are easy to spot because their statements are obviously pro industry. Sometimes their ideas sound reasonable at first reading. The Climate Leadership Council (CLC) is an example. Its proposal — called the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan (aka: the Climate Consensus Solution) — is presented as a sort of prospectus in its 6 page website. The plan is heavy on promotion, light on specifics. Change a few words in it and the thing could pass as a sales pitch, complete with big-name endorsements, for Florida investment property.

According to its website, the CLC is “an international policy institute founded . . . to promote a carbon dividends framework as the most cost-effective, equitable and politically-viable climate solution.” Its plan, the website says, is backed by “3500+ economists, 27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers.” 3500+ economists? That’s what it says. The following image identifies the CLC’s founding members.

Photo list of Climate Leadership Council founding members
Climate Leadership Council founding members. Image from CLC website

The CLC plan proposes that polluting industries pay a carbon tax on CO2 emissions, the money to be collected and given back to the American people in the form of dividend cheques. In exchange, the American people would have to agree to: the elimination of certain EPA emissions regulations; repeal of the clean power rule; and the introduction of a new law that would prohibit lawsuits of the sort that are currently plaguing fossil fuel producers. In other words, while the emitters of CO2 (all industries that burn fossil fuel) would pay a carbon tax, the producers of oil and gas, who refine but don’t burn much of the stuff themselves, would not have to pay much of the carbon tax. Instead, they would get to stick around producing more fossil fuel without having to worry about being sued for causing global warming.

Here’s how the creators of this ‘believe it or not’ scheme sum it all up:

“A sensible carbon tax might begin at $40 a ton and increase steadily over time, sending a powerful signal to businesses and consumers, while generating revenue to reward Americans for decreasing their collective carbon footprint.”

Let’s see how that might work: (1) Industry pays carbon taxes. (2) The tax money is collected and distributed to all Americans as a reward (for agreeing not to sue Oil and Gas companies?) (3) Industry raises its prices to recover the tax cost. (4) Americans use their reward money to cover the extra cost of the stuff they buy from industry. At what point in that Mobius Loop does a reduction in fossil fuel use take place? It doesn’t. The thing is a fantasy. But wait. Isn’t it true that carbon taxes work over time to limit the use of fossil fuels? Yes, but not when the taxing system is designed by fossil fuel pushers as is the case with this CLC plan. This plan is about convincing Americans to shut up about global warming so that the oil and gas companies can get on with the business of making money while the planet burns.

Among the CLC founding members shown in the image above, the five oil and gas companies are doubtless fully supportive of the CLC plan. As for the rest, who knows. My guess is that most of them don’t know exactly what they’ve lent their names to. The CLC pitch is misleading. The website prospectus mentions ‘carbon dividends’ 11 times and ‘climate solution’ 8 times. A dividend-generating Climate Solution sounds good. On the other hand, the words, oil, gas, fossil, or fuel, appear only once or not at all in the prospectus. Those are words that remind people of what causes global warming in the first place.

The Climate Leadership Council is headquartered in Washington DC at 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW.

1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC