Landowner Rights Denied By Moratorium      NY: 6 Years, 1 Months | DRBC: 5 Years, 3 Months

Author Topic: Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s energy structure  (Read 1768 times)

aktony

  • Posts: 981
This is the Jacobson, Howarth, Ingraffea, et.al., plan for converting New York's energy source from fossile fuel to renewable energy sources.  I post it here for our erudite forum followers to read and critique. Without an engineering background, I question whether the technologies they propose are presently available and/or whether they will be in the near future.  Further, are their projections regarding the energy output of wind/water/solar realistic?


It is likely the information contained in this paper will be vital to defending New York state's position against hydraulic fracturing in the lawsuit, especially the arguments against natural gas drilling in the "Why not natural gas?" section of the paper.


http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 12:55:21 PM by aktony »

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
This "paper" is science fiction.

They totally miscalculated renewables efficiency.  Will need at least 30% more capacity even if we assume no intermittency.  Make that double because they assumed about 30% savings from conservation or other efficiencies that cannot be explained.

They have no allowance for nights with no wind.  No budget for huge batteries or other energy storage infrastructure.  They claimed hydro would fill in those times.  No way!

The piece on the negatives of shale gas is worth reading.  Dr. Howarth seems to take a bit more moderated position, and seems to have intentionally muddied his words to confuse the reader.  He conveniently forgot to mention that the amount of methane emitted by industry is about the same as that emitted by cattles.  He also seemed to downplay the ills of sulfur, mercury, nitrous oxide and the particulates resulting from coal use.

Dr. Janette Barth, the "boom and bust" self-acclaimed "economist", seemed to take an opposite position against herself in this paper, singing praises of many of the one-time jobs that would be created by this huge conversion effort.

Bottom line, a farce.

donegal

  • Premium Member
  • Posts: 4763
I'm just a lil' suspicious, bein's that it posted April 1. ;) Thanks much for postin' akT.  Not wantin' to backslide into wholesale cut 'n pastin', here's just some snippets from the Abstract:

"This study analyzes a plan to convert New York State’s(NYS’s) ..... energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water,  and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen.Under the plan, NYS’s 2030 all-purpose end-use power would be provided by:

10% onshore wind(4020  5-MWturbines)
40% offshore wind(12,700  5-MWturbines)
10% concentrated solar(387  100-MWplants)
10% solar-PV plants(828  50-MWplants)
6% residentialrooftopPV(5 million  5-kWsystems)
12% commercial/ government rooftop PV(500,000  100-kWsystems)
5% geothermal(36  100-MWplants)
0.5% wave(1910 0.75-MWdevices)
1% tidal(2600 1 MWturbines)
5.5% hydroelectric (6.6 1300-MW plants, of which 89% exist)

...would reduce NYS’s end-use power demand 37% and stabilize energy prices since fuel costs would be zero. .... create more jobs than lost because nearly all NYS energy would ... be produced in-state.  NYS air pollution mortality .... would decline... repaying the 271 GW  installed power needed within 17 years, ...


Drummy is right on when he says, "Bottom line, a farce."

Me not wantin' to make up no one else's mind, just look at them numbers above.....why that's enough windmills and watermills that ya'll can lay off the whole Border Patrol and quit raisin' chickens TOO!  Poor immigrants be chopped to bits what with a whirlin' blade every 300' and there'll be enough dead seagulls to feed all of NYC!

Not only is it a farce, it's farther fetched than a Fairy-tale.

Donegal

p.s. LOOK at them numbers......FIVE MILLION Residential Roof-top PV systems.....that oughta' be cheap & easy to do......riiiiight. 

p.p.s.  Wonder what the power co. is gonna' do with the EXCESS comin' back to 'em...when they don't need it...that they'll likely have to pay a premium for.  Give it away to Pennsylvania?  Hey!! Let me pretend. It's all just a pipe dream anyways.

p.p.p.s.  "...reduce NYS’s end-use power demand 37%...",  awww....why bother commentin'.  Never heard no one critizin' other fairy tales claims, like them bein'  "Magic" Beans in "Jack & the Beanstalk".   
Captain of the Fleet's new flagship, the "Bismarck".....A Grey 2006 Chrysler 300 - OR to ya' Landlubbers - "The Butler's Bentley"  (Don't worry Sammy.  We're savin' the Exxon Valdez for ya'. Even if she's half-broke, she'll haul more 'n any Hyundai!)

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
While the bulk of wind mills would be offshore, the paper stipulates 1.46% of the entire NY state land surface will be covered by wind farms.

Their map shows that, incidentally, the Catskills and the Adirondacks have higher winds.

So, all the mountain peaks in these parks will be cleared for wind mills.

I don't think the Catskills Mountain Keepers would like the idea too much.

Rockdale

  • Anties
  • Posts: 5004
While the bulk of wind mills would be offshore, the paper stipulates 1.46% of the entire NY state land surface will be covered by wind farms.

Their map shows that, incidentally, the Catskills and the Adirondacks have higher winds.

So, all the mountain peaks in these parks will be cleared for wind mills.

I don't think the Catskills Mountain Keepers would like the idea too much.
>>>> Chicken Farmer, not unexpectedly, this group of dedicated anti-drillers gave the natural gas industry a fair trial and a fair hanging, not necessarily in that order.  From their Ivory Towers they have proposed a rather drastic change in the way we obtain our energy.  I have no doubt at all that we could eliminate fossil fuels usage if we absolutely had to.  The sticky part is that such a change would entail investments on a scale never seen before in human history, and a total realignment of the economy.  If the windmill and solar power advocates have the courage of their convictions, it would be time for them to work up a full cost accounting of their proposals as well as a model of what the landscape would look like after the change and present it for public discussion.  I think if people in ordinary circumstances, many of whom are already struggling to pay the bills, would see what it would cost and what this transformation would do to the standard of living of themselves and their children, that most of the people who have participated in this proposal would be thankful that they enjoy academic tenure.  Chalk this proposal up to a stroll through fantasy land while the real world is going about its business of converting to natural gas most everywhere it can.

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
By the way, we know that renewables today do not pay, not without substantial subsidies.

The Jacobson et al paper did not show actual calculations of the real costs of the renewables infrastructure.  So, on top of the $600 billion dollar capital investment, should we add another $600 billion in the form of Fed tax credits, another $600 billion in state subsidies?

Is NY state allowed to print money?

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
Jacobson et al claimed that converting to renewables would save 4,000 lives from premature deaths.  Since each life is worth $8 million, that would pay for much of the capital expenditure for the renewables infrastructure.

But per this thread:

http://www.naturalgasforums.com/smf/index.php/topic,19900.msg249407.html#msg249407

China is sacrificing 1,200,000 lives to produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other goods for us, so we can enjoy our "green" creature comforts here.

Are these Chinese lives worth anything?

donegal

  • Premium Member
  • Posts: 4763


"Are these Chinese lives worth anything?"

Sadly, it depends on which side  of the equation that yer on.

Funny, how when the numbers don't work out some folks like to throw up lives, as if ya' can't put a price on 'em.  Then, THEY go & do it. 

Folks lives is worth waaaay more to themselves than they are to any other people



Donegal
Captain of the Fleet's new flagship, the "Bismarck".....A Grey 2006 Chrysler 300 - OR to ya' Landlubbers - "The Butler's Bentley"  (Don't worry Sammy.  We're savin' the Exxon Valdez for ya'. Even if she's half-broke, she'll haul more 'n any Hyundai!)

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
The key excuse the anties shun natural gas is the claim that natural gas is worse for global warming than coal.

If we use International Panel for Climate Change's factors, the total green house gas emitted from pre-production to consumption might be exactly the same for coal and shale gas, but gas has no mercury, no particulates, and just trace of sulfer and nitrates, much cleaner than coal for what we breathe.

More importantly, total methane emitted from natural gas systems is just 15% of the total estimated emission from the US.  This is exactly the same as emitted by cattle, and less than what is given off by wetlands.  Even more importantly, how methane is absorbed (processed) in the atmosphere is still relatively unknown.  The total methane level in our air had been constant for the last 10 years despite increased shale gas production.  If they really want to follow science, natural gas is the only available clean energy solution today.

aktony

  • Posts: 981
On page 3, the authors discuss the relative carbon footprints of natural gas, oil, and coal.  They state the efficiency of natural gas is less than that of oil due to the increased amount of natural gas necessary for equivalent miles of transportation, the venting of methane and loss of methane during refueling.  They conclude, therefore, that methane has a higher carbon footprint than oil.


Further, "coal combustion emits significant supher dioxides and nitrogen oxides...which convert to sulfate and nitrate aerosole particles...(which) cause direct air pollution health damages but they are 'cooling particles' with respect to the climate because they reflect sunlight and increase cloud reflectivity."  The implication of this statement is coal is better for the climate than natural gas.


I will suppress the urge to CUT AND PASTE. There are several websites which cite data contradicting the conclusions of Jacobson, et.al.  Briefly, here is Wikipedia on natural gas vehicles:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
 

Chicken Farmer

  • Posts: 5403
  • L. A. N. Y.
Both IPCC and our EPA are cautious to point out that much of the methane cycle is unknow. The latest draft of EPA report shows continued decrease inept game emissions, possibly due to proventa in industrial practices.

These so-called scientists had to pick on the cleanest Andorra abundant energy resource we have, suppressing it in favor of renewables that they know won't work.  What's their agenda?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 04:16:29 PM by Chicken Farmer »

Rockdale

  • Anties
  • Posts: 5004
It's interesting to note that the rather far fetched energy proposals for New York include an increased reliance on hydro power to take up the slack from replacing fossil fuels.  According to what I have read over the years just about all of the good large scale sites for hydro power have already been utilized in the northeast with the exception of the last free flowing river which is the Delaware.  That brings to mind the history of the huge battle over building the Tocks Island project back in the 1960's and 1970's.  Doing a bit of research into that controversy I find that the Delaware River Basin Commission was very heavily involved and was a chief proponent of what would have been a massive dam which would have backed up a part of the upper Delaware into a lake about 30 to 40 miles long.  Tocks Island was a multi-purpose project involving recreation, flood control, a water supply during droughts and hydro power.  It was authorized by Congress in 1962 and gradually de-authorized during the 1970's.  But the park still caused about 15,000 people to be displaced from their homes, farms and businesses with a lot of that property seized through eminent domain, often at considerably less than fair market value.

admin

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2443
  • The last tank of gas cost as much as my first car!
    • RBSdot Web Development & Consulting
A number of my close personal friends parents had their river front cabins seized by eminent domain by that debacle.  I saw the results of taking land without just compensation back then and I am watching it happen again.


One of my friends parents refused to accept the low payment and, if I remember correctly, their property was condemned.  I don't know if they ended up getting anything at all.  But squatters used it for free for at least 10 or 15 years.
"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." (Ayn Rand)

ghrit

  • Posts: 2220
  • Member since October 05, 2008
I wonder if the hydro proponents are including pumped storage in that category?  Thinking the Yard's Creek plant while reading this.
3 leased acres in production.
There are two kinds of ships.  Submarines and targets.
www.survivalmonkey.com

 


Donations

We work on this project completely in our spare time. Donations help go towards ongoing costs related to keeping the site running, including hosting, bandwidth, etc. It also encourages us to commit regular updates, add features, and improve the service.

It isn't required of course, but if you find this site useful, you can donate using the PayPal button