Sooner or later, the reckless pace of decarbonization is going to lead to disaster.
It’s not the first time that I have mentioned this in the context of the “race” to net zero, but two characteristics typical of central-planning fiascos (and the race to net zero is nothing if not central planning, and nothing if not a fiasco) are speed — we have no time to waste! — and the failure to insist that, when putting the plan in place, that c should follow b should follow a.
The failure to arrange things in sequence is, in part, a result of the demand that the plan be fulfilled by some (usually arbitrary) date, and that progress towards its objectives be demonstrated by reaching as many targets as quickly as possible, even if they are out of order, perhaps destructively so. Removing, say, coal-fired power plants without ensuring that adequate systems have been installed to replace the reliable power they used to generate is an example of that kind of error.
And so to the saga of New York and last year’s Storm Elliott.
The Wall Street Journal (December 1):
Imagine if nearly half of New York City lost heat for months during the winter. That’s not the plot of a new survival drama. Such a catastrophe nearly occurred last Christmas, according to an alarming recent report by energy regulators that deserves more attention.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation last month published a 168-page review of the electricity and natural gas problems during winter storm Elliott last December. It was the fifth time in 11 years that power plant failures caused by cold weather jeopardized grid reliability.
At the same time demand for electricity to heat homes ramped up, many gas generators failed for technical reasons or lack of fuel. Hundreds of thousands of Americans in the southeastern U.S. lost power on Christmas Eve while millions more were urged to conserve power.
It “is especially disconcerting that it happened in the Eastern Interconnection which normally has ample generation and transmission ties to other grid operators that allow them to import and export power,” the report notes. Yet problems cascaded through the eastern U.S.’s interdependent energy systems, which nearly caused New York City’s gas distribution to collapse.
What had gone wrong?
Winter storms happen, but U.S. energy systems are becoming less resilient as coal and nuclear power plants shut down owing to competition from heavily subsidized green energy and cheaper natural gas. While gas power is more reliable than wind and solar, icy winter conditions can still cause fuel shortages.
Allowing shale fracking in upstate New York might have mitigated the gas supply shortage at the margin, but former Gov. Andrew Cuomo blocked that. The climate lobby’s antidote is electric heat pumps, but that would have increased strain on an already stressed grid. If New York City relied mostly on electricity for heat, millions could have lost both power and heat during the arctic blast. How’s that for a zombie apocalypse?
The New York Independent System Operator reported this week that the Empire State would need to rely on power plants that can switch to burning oil during the winter into the next decade owing to gas shortages and lulls in offshore wind.
To be sure, part of reason for this near miss was a result of the operation of markets (reliance on cheaper natural gas) — yes, yes, markets can lead to problems too — but another part was due to the market-distorting effect of heavily subsidized “green” energy.
In his discussion of the FERC report, Robert Bryce noted this:
NERC and FERC have repeatedly warned that the electric grid has become too dependent on natural gas. I love natural gas. And the increased use of gas (at the expense of coal) in the power sector has helped the U.S. cut its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world. But unlike coal — and the enriched uranium that fuels a nuclear power plant— gas is a just-in-time fuel. That makes it vulnerable to disruptions in service. And if gas supplies run short, so will electricity supplies.
Bryce adds:
The other key backdrop to this report, of course, is the headlong rush to shutter coal-fired power plants, a push that is being funded, in part, by billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg.
In an earlier report, Bryce had explained that “Bloomberg is giving another $500 million to a group of NGOs who are diligently working to shutter the bulk of our most important power plants — the ones that burn coal and natural gas and are therefore dispatchable and weather-resilient — and, in Bloomberg’s words, replace them with ‘renewable energy.’”
Power stations on the hit list currently produce around 40 percent of all the electricity generated in the U.S.
What could go wrong?
More generally, Bryce explains:
The northeastern U.S. doesn’t have enough gas pipelines to meet demand during extreme weather. That’s particularly true in the wake of the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. The output of that plant was replaced by gas-fired power plants.
Despite the need for more gas, over the past few years, four major interstate pipelines, with a total of 931 miles of pipe, have been blocked in New York by climate activist groups.
Reuters (November 8):
More than half of the U.S. and parts of Canada, home to around 180 million people, could fall short of electricity during extreme cold again this winter due to lacking natural gas infrastructure, the North American Electric Reliability Corp (NERC) said on Wednesday.
“Recent extreme cold weather events have shown that energy delivery disruptions can have devastating consequences for electric and gas consumers in impacted areas,” NERC said.
It put the U.S. Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and South, along with some Canadian provinces, at the highest risk for electricity supply shortages this winter.
Oh, so just a few local problems, then . . .
The way things are going, the green new deal risks leaving a lot of people cold as well as jobless.
Note, too, how the electrification being pushed by climate policy-makers is going to decrease resilience still further. What’s more, I cannot help wondering how willing those same policy-makers (many of whom are climate fundamentalists) will be to accept longer-term reliance on power plants that will, if necessary, burn (pass the smelling salts) oil, until a reliable (nuclear?) substitute can be found.
Oh, yes, electric vehicles (EVs) make their inevitable appearance in the Journal’s story:
EV charging load is higher on colder days due to reduced battery efficiency and reduced EV range in cold temperature.
That’s not news, but it is, yet again, a reminder that (so far) much of the technological advance represented by EVs is, in practical terms, a step backwards. That’s why so much effort is being made to force or bribe consumers to buy them. And, no, their adoption is not going to make much difference to the climate any time soon (if ever).
The Journal’s editors conclude their discussion of New York’s near miss as follows:
You’d think all this would be news given the growing risks of grid failure, but such talk is taboo among those who want the U.S. economy to run solely on electricity driven by wind and solar energy.
Meanwhile, from Britain (via the Daily Telegraph in April):
The UK’s net zero drive will leave it more vulnerable to power cuts caused by storms, the Government has been warned by its infrastructure commission.
People could be left sitting in cold homes or unable to charge their cars, while heavy industry could be knocked offline if overhead wires are brought down, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) said.
The NIC and the climate change committee have written to ministers, warning that the UK is failing to adapt its infrastructure to protect against climate change, including the record-breaking temperatures and storms seen last year.
“As our dependence on the decarbonised electricity system increases, risks like storm damage to overhead wires could become more disruptive,” the letter said.
It warned that “weather-related uncertainty such as low wind” could disrupt electricity supplies as the UK increasingly relies on wind power.
Sooner or later, the reckless pace of decarbonization is going to lead to disaster. I doubt if the voters will be forgiving.