Cutting Carbon Now

New York is shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which in the past has supplied upwards of 25% of the electricity for New York City and Westchester County.  So where is the electricity going to come from, especially since New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has blocked the construction of pipelines that would bring natural gas to New York City?  Governor Cuomo has proposed building 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind power and a 250-mile transmission line from upstate New York to bring in renewable energy, but they aren’t ready yet - obviously.  Also, given the opposition there will be to such proposals, who knows when they will be built, if ever.  After all, the Biden administration has already withdrawn proposals for offshore wind power developments off certain parts of Long Island because ….  Well, there are always good reasons for not building such things in one’s own backyard.  (Here.)

But, don’t worry about power blackouts in New York because, even if there is a shortage of natural gas, gas-powered plants can switch to oil.  Huh?  We’re trying to cut carbon emissions, so the solution is to: (i) shut down an existing nuclear plant, which supplies, by definition, at least once it is built, carbon-free power; (ii) block natural gas pipelines because natural gas emits carbon and we want to be carbon-zero; and (iii) use oil, the most carbon-intensive of all three, as the back-up power source until we can get wind farms and transmission lines for renewable energy built.

It reminds me of Germany, where existing nuclear powers are being shut down early (after the Fukushima nuclear power disaster in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Merkel apparently feared a tsunami on the Rhine would cause a similar problem in Germany¹).  In place of nuclear power, Germany is getting power from coal, especially brown coal.  Because that is what Germany has and because lots of Germans have jobs in the brown coal industry.

In New Zealand, efforts to be green have resulted in the government not allowing exploration for new natural gas fields, so New Zealand is using more coal to generate power and electricity.  (Here.)

I understand people want to get away from carbon-based power, but I don’t understand why they are unwilling to reduce carbon now by using natural gas instead oil (or coal) and why they aren’t willing to at least look at nuclear power, especially already existing nuclear plants.  Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon.  Natural gas generates carbon, but it generates less than oil or coal.  And going to natural gas, as a way to reduce carbon emissions now, doesn’t mean you have to stop there.  But it does mean you can put less carbon into the atmosphere while you are getting to carbon-free. 

Even if there is a climate crisis, it seems that, for some people, purity of principle is more important than compromises that actually get something done.
--------
¹ I did not come up with the “tsunami on the Rhine” comment.  It was by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (ret.) on the Goodfellows podcast (probably this episode).