New York State’s Plan Uses 63% Unreliable Sources

New York State’s Plan Uses 63% Unreliable Sources

New York State’s Climate and Community Protection Act calls for 100 percent zero-emissions electricity (including hydropower and nuclear) by 2040. It also targets a greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions reductions of 85 percent by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels).

The accompanying figure is a projection by McKinsey and Co., which includes a shift to electrification of new buildings and, to some extent, battery-powered vehicles.

The projection is for approximately 215 Terawatt-hours in 2040, compared with 160 TWh in 2020.

Wind and solar would provide 135 TWh, or 63% of the total.

Natural gas and coal, the least costly methods for generating electricity, would be entirely eliminated.

PV Solar and Offshore wind are two of the most costly methods for generating electricity and are, conservatively, more than twice the cost of electricity produced from natural gas. And this high cost doesn’t include the cost of new transmission lines to bring the offshore wind to where it’s needed across New York State.

It will be interesting to see how offshore wind (dark blue, supplying 28% of all New York State’s electricity) survives the next Super Storm Sandy.

As McKinsey notes, there will be a need for large amounts of storage, which is extremely costly.

From McKinsey Report: Redefining the Power Industry

No one knows the exact cost of storage, though an analysis has determined it will be in the trillions of dollars for a system the size of NewYork’s. See, Four Minutes for $150 million 

New York State’s plan for eliminating GHG will result in a huge increase in the cost of electricity and will force residents to depend on unreliable sources for their electricity.

These are irrefutable facts: 

Higher costs and less reliability are the virtually guaranteed result of New York State’s plan.

. . .



Please follow and like us:

6 Replies to “New York State’s Plan Uses 63% Unreliable Sources”

  1. Hi Donn,

    Do you see any construction of new nuclear power plants, ignoring for now the Southern Company plant that is nearing completion?

    Craig Mott

    • Not in the US. The only possibility in the future might be some small modular reactors (SMR) but that’s probably a decade away, if ever.

  2. No one knows the exact cost of storage because storage is a fantasy created by the green fringe. Closing Indian Point is criminal by any mean. For instance, NYC offers already one of the most expensive electricity in the country. Ban on fracking and pipeline construction only makes things worse. Right now the prevalent source of energy in NY State is natural gas, followed by oil(transportation and some heating), coal and them imports. Wind and Solar produces a minute % of the mix.

    • NY State also relies on hydro and that has remained steady for several decades. The State’s ban on fracking and pipeline construction hurts not only NY State, but also all New England states. Going from very little wind and solar (no offshore wind at all) to be the major soirces of electrocity will be a disaster if it is allowed to happen.

    • Time will tell. Germany is on the cusp of severely damaging their economy. We’ll have to wait to see how the people respond.