From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

The electric utility for most of New York City is Consolidated Edison, usually shortened to Con Edison, or even Con Ed. When I moved to New York almost 50 years ago, Con Ed was what they call “vertically integrated,” meaning that it was responsible for all aspects of the electricity system, from generation of the power, to high-voltage wholesale distribution, down to delivery to individual homes. That ended in the late 1990s. As part of the deregulation of that era, Con Ed sold off almost all of its generation facilities to independent operators who since then must bid for access to the grid. Today Con Ed is almost entirely in the distribution business, including both wholesale and retail.

Although it no longer generates the power, Con Ed does have competent grid engineers working for it, and it is in a position to have a bird’s-eye view of New York’s so-called energy transition. Clearly, they are very well informed about the looming energy disaster in this state. Also, of all the companies involved in some way in providing electricity in New York City, Con Ed is the main one that has direct contact with most of the ultimate consumers. They are like a sitting duck, waiting to take the blame when everything falls apart.

So, suppose you were Con Ed. What would be your strategy to deal with what you clearly know is an impending catastrophe?

If you found yourself in their position, there would be only one honest and righteous thing to do. You would sound the alarm, as loud as possible. You would shout from the rooftops that this can’t work. You would warn of the danger to human life of a predominantly wind/solar generation system that could fail completely for weeks in the dead of winter.

Instead, sad to say, Con Ed’s strategy is just as you would expect from people of no backbone and no principles. Today, the President of Con Ed, a guy named Matthew Ketschke, had an op-ed in the New York Daily News, titled “NYC’s power must be clean and reliable.” (unfortunately behind pay wall, but I will quote some substantial sections). Rather than leveling with the people, Ketschke goes the route of kowtowing to the political powers of the moment, while attempting to set up a narrative to deflect blame as best he can away from his own company. Oh, and while also preparing to cash in big by building a vast amount of new transmission capacity, with guaranteed return from the ratepayers, that will only exist to serve some near-useless wind and solar generators that will contribute almost nothing to useful electricity.

Before going into some detail, a few words on the Daily News. It was once the largest circulation newspaper in the country, with 2+ million daily subscribers in the 1940s and 50s. Since then it has shrunk continuously, until now it has fewer than 200,000 subscribers. Unlike the New York Post, which is not paywalled, the Daily News is almost entirely paywalled. As a result, I rarely look at it. Its editorials run substantially in line with the latest woke orthodoxy. (For example, today there is an editorial criticizing the Supreme Court’s bump stock case, and another advocating for free transit fares for low income people). However, to its credit, the Daily News has published a number of op-eds recently on both sides of issues of New York’s energy policies.

Here’s how Ketschke starts off:

New York’s energy system is at an inflection point. Energy use is rising — but due to climate change so are temperatures and the frequency of storms. Unfortunately, generators have been slow to meet that increasing demand with the clean energy we need to combat climate change, and now some are questioning the reliability of the power system. But I am here to tell you that New York City doesn’t need to sacrifice reliability to address climate change. We can have both.

I guess genuflecting to the climate change cult is a basic qualification for the job of President of Con Ed. But you could do that and still be honest when politicians are mandating the impossible. Instead, the gist here is that we are doing our part, and the looming problems are someone else’s fault. We can have “reliability” at the same time as we “address climate change” with wind and solar power. It’s just that those evil “generators” (not us!) have been “slow to meet the increasing demand with the clean energy we need.”

But what about the “gap” identified by the New York Independent System Operator, likely to manifest by 2030 or so in the form of insufficient generation to meet demand? Ketschke starts by acknowledging the looming gap:

[T]he NYISO report . . . found that in the coming decade, the buffer between New York’s peak energy use and ability to generate power is going to tighten — threatening reliability. That trend is a concern for those of us responsible for keeping the lights on and the air conditioners running, and a clarion call to move faster on building more sources of energy that are renewable and a system that is more reliable.

But hey, we don’t build generators, just transmission facilities. The generators are someone else’s problem. Rest assured, we are doing our part!:

Con Edison is currently investing more than $2 billion on infrastructure projects to ensure the grid can meet the increased demand for power as buildings and vehicles move away from fossil fuels and become electrified. . . . Con Edison is enhancing its electric delivery system to deliver more clean energy from solar arrays, wind turbines, hydro and other renewable resources to support New York State’s climate goals. The company is investing in energy efficiency programs, new substations, transmission lines to carry renewable energy, incentives for electric vehicle chargers, and other measures to usher in a clean energy future.

But what then about the generating facilities to provide the electricity? Sorry, not our job.:

The good news is that the NYISO report also found that the state is moving in the right direction, even if it’s slower than we want. In the last year, New York has added 452 MW of clean energy resources to the grid. We need that number to be in the 1000’s moving forward, but it’s a good start.

Those other guys just have to step up their game in a big way.

And then Ketscheke wraps up with some more genuflection, followed by kissing the feet and licking the toes of the climate cultists:

Opponents of New York’s clean energy plans would argue that we need to go back and embrace burning fossil fuels to ensure reliability. It’s a head scratching conclusion. . . . [W]e also know that the best long-term option for the state is to address climate change directly through smart investments that mitigate future climate change, while adapting to current reality.  New York needs to build more clean energy resources to allow the retirement of high polluting peaker plants. And we need to invest in research and development to spur new technologies that will help deliver electricity 24/7.

My normal instinct would be to feel some sympathy for the President of Con Edison, who is caught in a difficult to impossible position. He and his company will likely get a big share of the blame for the coming disaster. But between the genuflection to the cult and the profiteering off useless new transmission lines, he completely loses me. Con Ed, if you don’t have the courage to say the obvious truth here, you deserve whatever is coming to you.

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

BY WILL JONES

Net Zero targets aimed at encouraging airlines to use so-called green aviation fuel are driving fraud “at a mass scale” and deforestation, campaigners have said. The Telegraph has the story.

Exporters in China and Malaysia are using virgin palm oil instead of recycled cooking fat to make sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), research from lobby group Transport & Environment (T&E) suggests.

This means that rather than reducing CO₂ emissions, the drive to adopt SAF may instead be driving deforestation.

SAF accounts for just 0.2% of total jet fuel use, although the British Government has ordered U.K. airlines to lift that proportion to 10% by the end of the decade.

Cooking oil forms the basis for 80% of the world’s SAF, making old chip fat a valuable commodity. 

However, unscrupulous suppliers are seeking to turn a profit by cutting out the kitchen altogether and shipping virgin palm oil to unwary refiners and airlines.

Malaysia is the worst offender, according to T&E, as campaigners cast doubt over the country’s claims that it exports three times more used cooking oil than it collects. 

Last year Britain secured almost 30% of its SAF from oil shipped from Malaysia.

Cian Delaney, the group’s biofuels campaigner, said: “With Malaysia being one of the world’s largest palm oil producers, it would heavily indicate that used cooking oil is simply a backdoor for palm. Fraud is almost certainly happening at a mass scale.”

China also appears to be engaged in cooking oil fraud, T&E said.

While figures on the collection and export of oil appear to match, China has a large market for “gutter oil” that is illegally resold for cooking.

Taking that into account, there are “strong suspicions” that some exports include virgin vegetable oil mislabelled as waste oil.

Worth reading in full.