Tag Archives: Climate action

Councils make ‘undemocratic’ pledges in dash to reach net zero

At least 160 local authorities have made commitments to beat Government’s 2050 target but face accusations of not consulting voters

By Hayley Dixon

Millions of taxpayers face an accelerated dash to reach net zero with at least 160 councils signing “undemocratic” pledges to beat the Government’s 2050 targets, The Telegraph can disclose.

Local authorities across the country have introduced curbs after joining climate campaigns, including closing streets to traffic, charging vehicles to enter city centres and removing parking spaces. The Telegraph has the story.

Research by Together and Climate Debate UK has now mapped the councils involved for the first time.

“The pledges are not just undemocratic, but antidemocratic,” the authors say. “The pledges’ principles and aims have not been contested in public. And the public have not been asked for their consent.”

Pledges include acting “sooner” than Westminster to reach net zero and committing to more “ambitious” plans of action.

The largest campaign organisation, UK100, pays for “political consultants” to work in the most enthusiastic councils one day a week to help them reach their climate change goals.

One campaign group, UK100, pays for “political consultants” to work in the most enthusiastic councils one day a week to help them reach their climate change goals.

The 110 councils that have signed up to UK100 must promise that: “As local leaders across the UK, we recognise our responsibility to tackle the climate emergency and take bold action towards net zero.

“We will continue to lead the UK’s response to climate change, acting sooner than the Government’s goal by making substantial progress within the next decade to deliver net zero.”

Members note that they will “accelerate the delivery of local climate action” and “do everything within our power and influence” to “rapidly reduce” greenhouse gas emissions.

The majority of councils signing up to UK100 – almost 60 per cent – are either Labour-led or have Labour in power as part of a coalition.

A total of 65 councils have also signed up to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, with a cross over of 15 councils committing to both pledges.

The Global Covenant founding document states that those involved “commit to targets that will eventually be more ambitious than those of their respective national government”.

UK100’s members include Oxford city council, which has pledged to be net zero by 2040, a whole decade before the government target.

The authority has already introduced zero emission zones in which petrol, diesel and hybrid cars are charged up to £10 a day to use certain roads.

In implementing their zero carbon policies, the council had the help of a “net zero pathfinder”, a political consultant paid for by the UK100 network.

Leicester city council, which has signed up to both pledges, is attempting to become a carbon-neutral city by 2030 and has promised to make changes to increase cycling and walking and reduce reliance on cars.

In praising the work done by the “UK100’s Local Power in Action pathfinder” at the council, Adam Clarke, the deputy mayor, said that the consultant had “influenced effective decision making”.

Despite working in councils, UK100 does not name its funders, saying that they are “various grant giving organisations”. It has previously announced that it has received funding from the philanthropic organisation of billionaire financier Sir Christopher Hohn, who has also funded Extinction Rebellion.

UK100, which describes itself as a membership organisation, says that it does not mandate which specific policies councils should introduce to meet their targets, but they are “supportive” of plans to “decarbonise transport, promote active travel, support public transport and reduce air pollution in neighbourhoods across the country”.

‘Labour councils serving the world’s richest people’

Ben Pile, from Climate Debate, a group calling for discussion on net zero issues, said that the report showed the civil society organisations with the backing of billionaires were “increasingly seeking to influence local authorities’ policy agendas”.

He said: “Air pollution policies and other net zero policies will profoundly affect people’s lives, but there is little evidence of public support or agreement driving local authorities’ green agenda.

Read the full story here .

“Failure … is not an option”: COP28 President Urges Progress

United Arab Emirates Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology and COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber speaks during a press conference at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, December 4, 2023. REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani


From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“We are making progress” – but it sure doesn’t smell like progress.

From The Guardian;

Cop28: ‘failure is not an option,’ says summit president – as it happened

Sultan Al Jaber calls for countries to come together amid disagreements over the future of climate action

‘Failure is not an option’ – Al Jaber

Fiona Harvey

Sultan Al Jaber, president of Cop28, made a last-ditch call for all countries to come together this afternoon in Dubai, to find common ground amid deep disagreements over the future of climate action.

Everyone would be listened to, he said, emphasising as he has done from the start that this must be an inclusive process. “Everyone’s experience and national circumstances have merit and will be taken in consideration. We will not ignore anyone. As I’ve said many times, we will not neglect any issue, we will not neglect or undermine or underestimate any of the views or the national circumstances of any region or any country. And I promise that they will all be heard,” he said.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2023/dec/10/cop28-live-focus-on-food-and-agriculture-as-climate-change-summit-continues

I actually feel a little sorry for Sultan Al Jaber. Despite being a big oil boss, I think he genuinely expected parties to behave rationally, that participants would be persuaded to buy his gas to help ween their economies off coal and oil, and everyone could go home and report real progress towards reducing global CO2 emissions.

What Al Jaber didn’t reckon on is the sheer irrationality of the climate movement. No agreement which includes a future role for fossil fuel is politically acceptable to Western climate extremists, no matter how much it reduces CO2 emissions. To the green extremists driving this entire process, Al Jaber has committed blasphemy by suggesting fossil fuel has a future. There is also a real possibility many participants at the COP conferences don’t actually want genuine progress, they just want someone to blame for the lack of progress.

Al Jaber is the perfect fall guy for the coming blame storm – he’s a big oil executive, and he was in charge of COP28.

Pinning the blame for failure on Al Jaber could have commercial consequences for the UAE economy, if greens in Europe and elsewhere demand the scapegoat be punished.

New York State Advanced Clean Cars

Power supply connect to electric vehicle for charge to the battery. Charging technology industry transport which are the futuristic of the Automobile. EV fuel Plug in hybrid car.

Watts Up With That?

From the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

By Roger Caiazza

I believe that the majority of New Yorkers are unaware of the ramifications of regulations implementing control programs for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) emission reduction mandates.  This post describes one regulation that will affect most New Yorkers but has not received as much attention as I would have thought.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently adopted amendments to 6 NYCRR Section 200.9 and 6 NYCRR Part 218 will incorporate California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation that require increasing annual zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales requirements starting at 35% in model year 2026 and increasing to 100% by model year 2035.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.  This regulation is an example: “The amendments are also consistent with the requirements of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019, as well as legislative requirement for all new, light-duty vehicle sales to 100% ZEV by 2035, Chapter 423 of the Laws of 2021, to further reduce greenhouse emissions in New York State.”

Advanced Clean Cars Regulation

One problem for the public as regulations and legislation are proposed and enacted is that the regulatory action language is dense and unclear.  The  DEC description of this rulemaking is a good example:

Part 218 Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) (PDF) – Effective July 6, 2023

This notice is continuation of the Proposed/Emergency Rulemaking of the same title that was adopted and effective on December 13, 2022 and published in the State Register on December 28, 2022. Emergency Rulemaking – Parts 200, General Provisions, and 218, Emissions Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines. The emergency rulemaking will incorporate the State of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation. The proposed amendments establish new zero emission vehicle (ZEV) and low emission vehicle (LEV IV) standards intended to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) and NMOG + NOx (non-methane organic gas + oxides of nitrogen) emissions from light- and medium-duty on-road vehicles.

The ZEV amendments include an annual ZEV sales requirement for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), minimum technical requirements, ZEV assurance measures, regulatory flexibilities, and simplified credit accounting. The proposed ZEV amendments will apply to 2026 and subsequent model year light-duty passenger cars (PC), light-duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV). Starting with model year 2026, OEMs, will be required to deliver an increasing annual percentage of their sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs. This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years. The proposed LEV IV amendments will apply to 2026 and subsequent model year PC, LDT, and medium-duty vehicles (MDV).

The Notice of Emergency Rulemaking is effective as of July 6, 2023, and will be available in the July 26, 2023 issues of the State Register and the Environmental Notice Bulletin.

Advanced Clean Cars for the Public

I think that the biggest unappreciated impact to the public will be the sales percentage mandates for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV).  Buried in the regulatory documents there is a pretty straigh-forward explanation. On page 4 of the July 26, 2023 State Register (page 14 of the pdf file) the sales mandates are described:

Starting with model year 2026, OEMs, will be required to deliver an increasing annual percentage of their sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs. This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years.

PHEVs may be used to meet up to 20% of the annual ZEV requirement and they must meet minimum technical requirements. The use of PHEVs to meet part of the annual ZEV requirement will sunset following the 2035 model year.

ZEVs and PHEVs will be required to meet minimum technical requirements to earn ZEV values under ACC II. ZEVs must have a minimum all electric range (AER) of at least 150 miles and PHEVs must have a minimum AER of 50 miles and be capable of doing at least 40 miles on an aggressive drive cycle. ZEVs and PHEVs must also meet the ZEV assurance measures to be eligible to earn ZEV values. PHEVs must also be certified to super ultra-low emission vehicle (SULEV) standards and be covered by a 15 year or 150,000 mile warranty

The proposed ACC II ZEV amendments include ZEV assurance measures consisting of durability, warranty, service information/ standardized data parameters, and battery label requirements. The ZEV assurance measures will ensure that ZEVs retain functionality and reliability as internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) are transitioned out of the on-road fleet.

Reactions to Advanced Clean Cars

The Big Green NGOs support this program to mitigate climate change.  The NRDC claims “Transitioning to a zero-emission transportation system, therefore, is one of the most effective ways to mitigate climate change, improve air quality and health almost everywhere, and make the total cost of car ownership lower and more predictable.”  The Sierra Club says “One policy that has pushed EVs to become more affordable and easier to purchase is the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC2) Rule, also known as the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Standard.” 

While I am sure that there are people who agree with these organizations, I believe that the majority do not.  According to the NYSERDA Electric Vehicle Registration Map there were 155,988 electric vehicles on the road in New York as of July 2, 2023.  There are on the order of 11.5 million vehicles registered in New York so electric vehicles account for about 1.5% of the vehicles in the state.  The following table lists the number of new EV registrations per year.  EV proponents point to the increasing sales but, given the tremendous marketing effort for EVs I do not these numbers represent an endorsement for electric vehicles where it counts.

The reality is that there are issues with EVs.  I have set up a background page that provides links to articles describing some of those issues.  I am going to describe a couple of recent articles here that list some of my concerns.

Both articles address the obvious issue.  What if people like me don’t want to buy a battery electric vehicle because of range limitations, home infrastructure concerns, and worries about the morality of the supply chain of rare earth metals.  The first article notes that Unsold Electric Cars May Be Signaling A Death Spiral For The Auto Industry.  Ronald Stein lists reasons why people are not purchasing EVs and points out that EV inventories are rising.  He also points out that the used car market is important but that the EV used car market is non-existent.  Anecdotally, a friend of mine in the car business says that used Evs are not selling because of lemon laws and worries about battery replacement.

The other article by Terry Etam, The Potential Looming Auto Industry Fiasco, takes a big picture look at what lies ahead for the auto industry.  He notes that:

In the second quarter of 2023, Ford lost $72,000 on every EV sold. While the latter is ‘sort of’ normal for new car platforms – and Evs are nothing if not new platforms – what isn’t normal is for highly-touted/media-frenzy revolutionary new autos like the Ford Mustang Mach E EV to be selling under 3,000 units per month in the US as it is in 2023, two years after introduction (US sales peaked over 5,000 units per month shortly after introduction). In the second quarter of 2023, Ford sold 14,843 Evs (out of 513,662 vehicles sold by the company overall), a fairly meagre total considering the capital invested and the marketing campaigns. In the minds of most consumers, it seems an EV means a Tesla, and there is scant interest in anything else no matter the marketing hyperbole.

Etam brings up another point that is a concern of mine.  Evs are so expensive that the low- and middle- income residents of disadvantaged communities will have a tough time buying one.  He explains:

In case anyone cares, and it doesn’t seem that they do when energy transitions are discussed, this will all work out the absolute worst for lower income people. Ordinarily, the auto market provides options for lower economic classes with vehicles that are no longer in favour. For example, in periods of high gasoline prices, consumers that can afford to switch up will tend to go for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the market can get flooded with inefficient ones – which has the effect of pushing down prices of these out of favour beasts, putting them within reach of poorer people. The fuel costs may be higher, but at least they can buy wheels.

That likely won’t happen this time around, if we see people buy ICE vehicles and then hoard them for as long as they can. In fact, things are terrible already for lower income people looking to buy older used cars – prices have skyrocketed for those as well. 

Used cars are expensive, new cars are hideously more so, and Evs are, thus far, mostly toys of the wealthy with multi-car garages, or well paid urbanites that can afford to use them where they really shine. Again, we can see where China is twelve steps ahead; many popular Evs in China are tiny, cheap EV runabouts that don’t have massive range, but get the job done. No such option is available here in North America, few in Europe, and if they do show up on these shores, it is a safe bet they will be of Chinese origin, because they’re the only ones that can make money at it.

New York Reality

I took a quick look at the numbers to see if the Advanced Clean Car regulations in New York that require a certain percentage of new vehicle sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs have realistic targets.  The requirements are:

This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years.  PHEVs may be used to meet up to 20% of the annual ZEV requirement and they must meet minimum technical requirements. The use of PHEVs to meet part of the annual ZEV requirement will sunset following the 2035 model year.

Where is the state now relative to these mandates?  At one time it would have been relatively easy to get the necessary data to determine the status.  However, the NY Department of Motor Vehicles no longer provides historical registration and new vehicle registration summary information.  Instead the primary New York registration information through Data.NY.Gov is a data dump of 12.5 million rows of registrations.  Completely worthless without a lot of processing and I don’t think it includes any historical information.  There is Data.NY.Gov source of summary registration by fuel type and county data.

In order to estimate the EV percentage of new car sales I needed the number of vehicles sold in New York.  I could not find that data but did find data for the United States.  I assumed that the percentage of new car sales in New York would be the same as the percentage of the country.  I found a source for United State motor vehicle registrations that included state data.  The following table lists country-wide and New York registrations by vehicle type.  I lumped all the registrations together for this analysis.

For new car sales I found data for the country.  I estimated the New York new car sales as the same percentage of new sales to total registrations for the country.  The following table lists those results.  Because I did not have registration data after 2019, I assumed the New York sales would equal the 5-year average for 2019 and subsequent years (highlighted in yellow).

I previously listed the EV registration data for New York. The following table includes a projection of sales needed for model year 2026. These assumptions show that the idea that New York will be able to meet the Advanced Clean Car rule 2026 mandate is preposterous. In 2023 I estimate that 8.6% of the vehicle sold will be EVs. Note that PHEVs made up around 50% of the sales in 2022 but that starting in 2026 that percentage needs to be lowered to 20%. I interpolated where we are in 2023 to 2026 and the increase in sales of EVs is not likely. To think that in 2025 that EV sales will be larger than the number of EVs currently on the road is nothing but wishful thinking.

The State Register notice describes the public comments:

Most of the more than 4,400 commenters including vehicle manufacturers, environmental groups, and non-governmental organizations supported the Department’s ACC II adoption. The remaining six commenters, including a large manufacturer of diesel engines and a petroleum industry trade group, were opposed to the regulation.

Typically, DEC will point to this overwhelming support in favor of the regulation as “proof” that it is appropriate.  If the comments were representative of general public opinion, then the percentage of EVs on the road in New York and the sales totals would be much higher.  As a result, the argument that the comments supporting the program are representative of general public opinion fails.  The overwhelming numbers do show that the environmental movement is extremely good at playing the game.

Used Vehicles

I believe that the regulation only applies to new cars.  This explanation states: “This law doesn’t affect gas cars already on the road, the sale of used gas cars or new registrations of gas cars.”  I suspect what we will see will be similar to what happened in Cuba.  Etam notes that:

Cuba has not had access to modern automotive technology since the 1960s. As a result, streets still are full of ancient American cars, held together forever.

There is no reason to think that won’t happen in the US, Canada and western Europe when the new-ICE ban comes into effect. Some segments of the population will go with the regulatory-mandated flow, while a great many will hold onto what they know, trust, and love. Short of a miracle battery breakthrough, many will simply not trust EVs in cold weather and/or instances where battery power doesn’t cut it.

As note previously, the lack of used EVs will impact the low income and disadvantage communities the most.  The regulation tries to address this problem but I don’t think the plan is very useful:

The proposed voluntary ACC II EJ flexibility is intended to award extra ZEV values to OEMs that undertake programs to expand ZEV availability to low income and disadvantaged communities. Optional programs include discounted ZEVs and PHEVs placed in community-based clean mobility programs, used ZEVs and PHEVs remaining in New York following the expiration of their lease term, and making low-cost ZEVs available to low income and disadvantaged communities. EJ values will be capped at 5% per year and will sunset following model year 2031.

Conclusion

From a practical standpoint I do not see how the new car sales mandates are going to convince those members of the public that EVs have more problems than benefits to buy one.  I bet that enterprising car salesmen will figure out ways around the regulation for those people who want a new internal combustion engine or even a PHEV for that matter.  If I but one out of state and come in toe DMV to register it are they going to say you cannot do that?  Will there be a market for sales out-of-state to middle men who buy a specific new car then turn around and sell it “used”.  The ultimate fall back is to simply keep the existing cars running as long a possible.

When I tell someone that there is a regulation in place that will eventually force them to buy an electric vehicle, the usual response is to say they cannot do that and I won’t buy one.  Unfortunately, the law is in place and eventually there will not be any other options for new vehicles.  The only alternative is to vote out the pandering politicians who respond to the marketing efforts of the Big Green lobbyists that got us into this mess.  I think that will eventually happen and I can’t wait.


For more on electric vehicles, go to our ClimateTV EV topic

Guardian / YouGOV – European Support for Real Climate Action is Weak

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Lots of people support climate action – but that support wanes dramatically when the proposed actions are personally inconvenient, like giving up your automobile.

Many Europeans want climate action – but less so if it changes their lifestyle, shows poll

Exclusive: YouGov survey in seven countries tested backing for government and individual action on crisis

Jon Henley Europe correspondent @jonhenley
Tue 2 May 2023 15.00 AEST

Many Europeans are alarmed by the climate crisis and would willingly take personal steps and back government policies to help combat it, a survey suggests – but the more a measure would change their lifestyle, the less they support it.

Measures entailing no great lifestyle sacrifice were popular, with between 45% (Germany) and 72% (Spain) backing government tree-planting programmes and 60% (Spain) and 77% (UK) saying they would grow more plants themselves or were doing so already.\

Even more radical proposals, such as voluntarily eating no more meat and dairy and having fewer children than you would like, were supported by between barely 10% (Germany) and 19% (Italy), and 9% (Germany) and 17% (Italy) respectively.

Changes in car use, a major contributor to carbon emissions and an area in which many European governments are already legislating, also drew responses that showed a close correlation to the impact they might have on people’s lives.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/many-europeans-want-climate-action-but-less-so-if-it-changes-their-lifestyle-shows-poll

What a surprise – not. Personally I blame greens for this dissonance between people’s expectations and what greens think is required to save us from the carbon demon.

How many times have greens told people that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel?

That businesses can save money by going green?

So why all this talk of personal sacrifice and lifestyle changes? If green is easier and cheaper, why should anyone need to make any sacrifices?

You can’t have it both ways greens. Either green is cheaper and better, which eliminates the need for significant personal sacrifice, or someone has been telling a few fibs.

Another Non-reassuring Report On New York’s Energy Future

Fropm MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

As stated in my previous post of April 19, two separate Reports addressing the question of New York’s net zero electricity future have recently been brought to my attention. These two Reports are distinct from the so-called Scoping Plan, issued by the state’s Climate Action Council. The Scoping Plan is supposed to be the official word on how we are to achieve “net zero” electricity by some time in the 2030s. Unfortunately, this Scoping Plan is not a feasibility study, or anything close to that, and despite enormous length — 700+ pages between text and appendices — really comes down to no more than a direction to the low status people to figure out how to achieve the decarbonization mandates set by their superiors.

And thus we find that well-informed New Yorkers (a small number at this point), upon recognizing and inquiring about the rank inadequacy of the Scoping Plan, are being directed by their politicians to these other two Reports as supposedly containing the answer to how this is going to be done. One of the Reports, issued by the electric utility Con Edison in late 2022, was discussed in my April 19 post.

My subject today will be the other Report, titled “Initial Report on the New York Power Grid Study.” It has an issue date of January 21, 2021. Who wrote it? Under a heading “Prepared By” on the cover page, we find credit first given to unnamed “staff” of the New York Department of Public Service and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; but then there is a list of some seven named authors, all of whom come from two consulting companies, the Brattle Group and Pterra Consulting.

Reader Bill Ponton has sent along several comments on this Report, and I’m going to feature those.

If you were to start reading this Report, the first thing that will strike you is that the authors are at pains to let you know that they are making no commitments here as to anything important, like exactly how much new stuff needs to be built, how much it will cost, and whether it will work. Rather, they’re just tossing out some ideas on how to get started. A few excerpts from the Executive Summary:

Meeting these [Climate Act] milestones will require investment in renewable generation, as well as storage, energy efficiency measures, electrification of the transportation and heating sectors, and electric transmission and distribution (T&D) infrastructure. . . . To meet these directives, the PSC, through the Department of Public Service, initiated a set of system studies, collectively referred to as the Power Grid Study (PGS), which is the subject of this Initial Report. . . . The three PGS studies suggest the following potential distribution, local transmission, and bulk transmission needs. . . .

Hey, these are just “suggestions.” Go ahead and spend twenty years and a few hundred billions of dollars trying to build it out. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. If it doesn’t, try something else.

Most of the Report addresses transmission issues. But the subject of how much wind, solar and storage capacity to build does finally turn up in Appendix E. At page E-3 we find this table of “initial scenario” installed renewable capacity (in MW):

Add up the solar and wind rows, and you get about 21 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and 46 GW by 2040. They then assume that they will get some 58,155 GWh of useful generation from the 21 GW of renewable capacity in 2030. But Ponton — who has just completed a study of actual results from wind and solar generators in the UK in 2022 — thinks that they have way over-estimated how much usable generation they can get from this 21 GW of wind and solar capacity. He calculates that if New York’s 2030 results are approximately the same as those of the UK for 2022, the actual usable generation from the renewables will be more like 35,760 GWh. From an email from Ponton on April 18:

It is difficult to believe that NY State could have any different outcome in 2030 other than the UK results in 2022. . . . They will be sorely disappointed finding that they will only be able to generate about half the renewable energy that they anticipate in 2030 even if they meet their ambitious renewable capacity buildout plans.

But far more absurd is the provision in this Report for prospective energy storage. Note the numbers in the table above — 3 GW in 2030 and 15.5 GW in 2040. As usual they leave out the duration of the batteries. But Ponton wrote to the lead author of the Report from the Brattle Group, a guy named Hannes Pfeifenberger, to get the information. Result:

I asked one of the principal authors of the NY Power Grid study report, Hannes Pfeifenberger, how did he intend to balance fluctuations in wind power and he stated that the biggest factor was 17 GW of battery storage with a maximum duration of 6-hr, totaling 102 GWh. His response is surprising. I calculated that with wind power capacity of 84 GW,  there was 59,851 GWH of wind energy curtailed and 48,071 GWH of gas turbine energy used. In theory, the curtailed wind energy could be stored and then subsequently discharged to substitute for the energy provided by the gas turbines, but would require energy storage of 12,000 GWH. 

102 GWh versus 12,000 GWh. So, as usual with the studies we can find for places like New York and California, they’re off on the storage requirement by a factor of more than 100.

Is it possible that Ponton and I are missing something and these guys actually know what they are doing? I suppose. But then, why not build a demonstration project and prove us definitively wrong?

UPDATE, April 23: Below is a rendering from my energy storage report of a grid battery storage facility under construction in Queensland, Australia, by a firm called Vena Energy. Its stated capacity is 150 MWh.

150 MWh is 15% of one GWh. So it will take about 80,000 of these to provide New York with its 12,000 GWh of grid storage. At $250/KWh (highly optimistic) the cost will run around $3 trillion — well over double New York’s annual GDP.