Those pushing the Green New Deal like to talk of a glorious, clean future, filled with “good-paying jobs,” happy public-transport users, sleek electric vehicles, and all the rest. I remain unconvinced, shall we say, that this is how this latest centrally planned “great leap forward” will turn out, and so this story from Bloomberg came as no great surprise when it appeared last week:
New York City is at risk of power outages by 2025 as rising demand amid intense heat and the push toward electrification outpace the grid’s capacity.
At peak times this summer, the city needs about 8,800 megawatts but by summer 2025 it would be about 446 megawatts short for nine hours at a time, according to a report released Friday by the New York Independent System Operator. Shortages would worsen if temperatures exceed 98F, the report says.
NYISO’s estimate comes after 1,027 megawatts from fossil fuel-powered peaker plants, which provide energy at times of high demand, were taken off the grid this year to comply with a 2019 antipollution law. More peaker plants are scheduled to be taken offline by mid-2025, a move that will leave the grid without enough power during summer months when demand spikes as people crank up air conditioners.
Electrifying buildings and Uber fleets in pursuit of emission reduction goals will further strain the grid even as its capacity dwindles, contributing to the energy deficit.
Without additional power generation, energy efficiency or storage solutions, shortages mean the city faces the risk of blackouts in two years, said NYISO spokesperson Kevin Lanahan.
Pressure on the grid could ease with the anticipated connection of the Champlain Hudson Power Express pipeline, which is expected to start carrying energy from Canada to New York in spring 2026. Until then, NYISO is working with utility companies and developers to fill the gap, said Lanahan. “We’re confident that we’re going to solve the need,” he said. [Emphasis added]
We’ll see, but this is not a conversation we should even be having.
A significant part of the problem with net zero comes not so much from the project itself, which is bad enough, but from the lunatic way in which it is being implemented: C doesn’t follow B, B doesn’t follow A. The reworking of an economic, social, and industrial order (because that’s what this “race” is intended to do) ought to be arranged in an order that makes sense. It is obviously a bad idea to switch off one source of power without making sure first that there is another ready to take its place, particularly when the result of other aspects of decarbonization will be to increase demand for the electricity that is going to be in shorter supply. That an unreliable power supply will deliver yet another blow to New York City at a bad time only makes things worse.
And yet here we are.
Stupidity, recklessness and political calculation have all played their part in creating this risk. So has fanaticism.
As with so many millenarian narratives, not only is the climate apocalypse on the way, but it is going to be coming soon. Thus its evolving language. Climate “change” becomes a climate “crisis,” climate “chaos,” a climate “emergency.” Well, take your pick: There are plenty of scary words out there.
The fact that these changes to the city’s power supply will make no material difference to the global climate is neither here nor there. An end-times narrative has no room for cost–benefit analysis but plenty for pointless sacrifice and, for that matter, for equally pointless acts of penance.
The danger is that people will come to accept an unreliable electricity supply as just one of those things that nothing can be done about. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s a choice, and it’s a bad one.