Two goals of the New York’s Climate Action Committee Scooping Plan are to produce 70% electricity generated by clean renewable energy by 2030 and 100% Zero emission electricity by 2030. These goals are too optimistic and will do Incredible harm to the New Yorkers and the New York economy if this plan is put into action without any amendments to the scooping plan itself or even the CLCLA.

The Scooping Plan aims to solve New York’s future energy needs primarily by generating 70% electricity with solar, winds farms and hydro. Some current research, modeling and real-life observations question this strategy on the grounds that solar and wind and even hydro generators because of their low density as well their intermittency, can never alone supply the energy demands of a modern society at competitive prices without the back-up from a reliable baseload supply (coal, gas or nuclear). 
The simple fact is that especially wind and solar farms dependent on sometimes fickle monthly even seasonal weather conditions that can stretch over large regions even encompassing several states. This in turn, can create havoc with the “Supply and Demand” chain.

 Yes, renewables can be installed quickly and are initially relatively cheap. However, as a connected system, they quickly cause the utility prices to rise. For instance, additional expenses for high % renewable systems are higher cost of back-up systems (nuclear, gas or coal); the need for overbuilding; the need for dumping overproduced electricity; the relative quick degradation of output, the relatively short lifespan plus the legal costs that come with siting problems *(Dumping electricity is caused by too much sun or wind at the wrong time). 
The crucial question is: If New York execute this plan’s recommendations in its current form will we be able to meet the demands of a progressing and intensifying NY economy that will be powered with clean energy coming a 70% renewable energy supply? 

   For instance, California and Germany also chose the high percentage renewable electricity   path.  Germany, after nearly 17 years trying to build and 100% renewable grid, still supplies about 50% of its electricity with coal and gas. It has the highest utility prices in the Europe, and it is falling short of the European clean air standards.
California has had blackouts, gas plant accidents, brown-outs and currently the system operators must often resort to rationing the electricity supply their customers in cities. California has emission problems too. Their Governor recently asked the legislators to lower the State’s emission standards, because renewables are not able to supply enough electricity during the recent extreme weather conditions 

The Scooping Plan estimates New York’s electricity consumption for the year 2050 (an important year in the plan) will be around being 351 Terra watts. This number includes the electrification of 95% of natural gas, motor gas and heating oil.

Using the New York E.I.A.  figures for the year 2020 as a benchmark and comparison, I got the following T(trillion) Btu figures:

Natural gas             1300 Btu (tril)
Fuel oil heating           300
Motor gas Heating        525  
Other                      80 
Total                    2205 Btu(tril.)

Converting this into watts, one multiplies 0.000293 x 2205 (tril) and one gets 646 Terra watts. This 2020 estimate is double then the scooping plans 2050 estimate. It suggests that the demand for electricity in the year 2500 will be much higher than the Scooping plan projects. In other words; there will be shortages.

 As mentioned before, weekly, monthly and seasonal weather conditions will remain unpredictable. A supply of 70% electricity from renewables, even with bigger or better grid management, larger batteries or taller wind turbines, will therefore also remain unpredictable. New York State should not plan a future economy around weather conditions. 
There is a solution. Current nuclear powerplants and designs can easily and safely support 50% renewable grid. If New York start building the Generation III+ reactors, with U.S. designs that have already been tested, approved and been built in elsewhere in the world, New York can lick the emission and energy problems easily by 2050. 

I suggested that Climate Action Council in its final report inserts a statement t that:" the Council due to the parameters of its mission was not able to include an in-depth exploration and possibilities of nuclear energy. The Council recommends an exploration.”

Furthermore, the council should also recommend that the State of New York set up a another special council to solely explore the future role of nuclear power in New York State.

Truly yours,
Paul van Linden Tol