WolfeNotes.com

Off Shore Wind Capacity Was Designed To Serve Growth In Power Demand Resulting From Electrification

Murphy’s Energy Master Plan Integrated Wind With Continued Reliance On Fossil Gas Power

(Source: NJ BPU Energy Master Plan)

The back stabbing betrayal by foreign corporate off shore wind developer Orsted was a humiliating blow to NJ Gov. Murphy’s off shore wind program, but it will have no impact on NJ’s greenhouse gas emissions or air quality (and while we are pointing fingers, let’s not forget that NJ based corporate PSE&G recently abandoned the wind program, too).

That is because the 2,200? megawatts of electric power projected to be produced by the Orsted project was planned to serve growth in electric demand resulting from electrification of vehicles and buildings.

Gov. Murphy, environmental and climate groups, and media have been misleading the public about this basic fact from day one.

Here is there typical lie from NJ Spotlight:

Offshore wind is intended to provide approximately 27% of New Jersey’s electricity by 2050, according to the state’s Energy Master Plan. Solar energy is currently projected to supply about one-third, and the bulk of the rest is projected to come from nuclear power.

That claim is misleading and false (by omission), and reporter Tom Johnson knows it.

Under Murphy’s Energy Master Plan, electric demand will more than double by 2050.

The off shore wind capacity will serve that increase in demand. Existing fossil will not be replaced by off shore wind, but will continue to operate and produce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under Murphy’s Energy Master Plan, off shore wind is explicitly technically integrated with continued reliance on fossil natural gas:

11 “Clean firm” generating resources means dispatchable, carbon-neutral capacity within New Jersey to provide power during weather events where wind and solar resources produce little energy across the region. This is further discussed earlier in the box, “Renewable Energy, DER, and the Integrated Energy Plan.”

Here is that same concept again, from the EMP’s technical support document, known as the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP):

Under the Murphy Energy Master Plan, best case, at least 8% of NJ electric generation will be supplied by fossil sources in 2050 (very likely more as allowed by the definition of “clean firm generating sources“, which means existing fossil gas plants, and the legal definitions of “renewable energy” (which includes GHG emitting garbage incinerators), “renewable energy credits” (which includes out of state fossil based power), and “net zero” (which allows all sorts of manipulations and abuses based on underlying quantification and measurement methods and data):

No BPU or DEP regulatory approval or contract included any linkage between off shore wind capacity and mandatory displacement of current existing fossil power capacity.

The electric power generation sector is responsible for only about 20% of NJ greenhouse gas emissions. With a doubling of electric demand, even best case wind makes very small reductions in just 20% of emissions.

The toothless NJ Global Warming Response Act (GWRA) does not mandate anything, and does not apply to wind.

The Murphy DEP’s narrow power sector CO2 emissions regulation actually allows emissions to increase (and it ignores methane emissions).

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) does not apply to wind and the emissions reduction caps are far above the goals of the NJ GWRA goals or even the flawed concept of “net zero”. The RGGI allowance prices are a pittance, less that 10% of the social costs of carbon, and a cost of doing business that have no impact on corporate energy strategy decisions

There are no teeth in any of these laws and programs when it comes to actual real GHG emissions. But there is no need to take my word for any of this.

For an explanation and solid analysis of how renewables serve new demand growth and will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, see:

• Energy transitions or additions?  Why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy

Same Lies Being Printed On Costs Of Renewables And Electrification

No Mention Of The Costs Of The Climate Emergency

Time For Public Power

Corporate off shore wind developer Orsted just pulled the plug on Gov. Murphy’s off shore wind program.

As I’ve written many times, the fatal flaws in that program were privatization – which effectively abdicated government control to corporate Orsted – and reliance on corporate profits and huge public subsidies.

This debacle provides the most powerful illustration of why we need public power – we can not allow corporate profits and corporate control to dictate our climate and energy future.

But the media also played a role in the death of off shore wind as well.

For years, Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight wrote scores of highly misleading stories about the so called high cost of wind, while ignoring the costs of the climate emergency (known as the social costs of carbon). He also never reported on alternative development models, like public power, as recommended in Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal (via expanding and repurposing the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)).

NJ Spotlight also repeatedly published the lies that off shore wind was responsible for recent whale deaths.

So, we did not miss the fact that today – for the first time – NJ Spotlight actually reported that the whale death claims were “false”:

But offshore wind has become a top political target and an issue in next week’s legislative elections amid false claims that prepping for construction has caused an increase in whale deaths along the Shore.

It’s a little late to report the truth now – after the project is dead!

Spotlight is knowingly printing the same kind of Big Oil and corporate lies about a so called fossil “car ban” – as well as today again about the so called high costs of renewables and electrification.

I say knowingly because I’ve repeatedly written to criticize their coverage to Spotlight editors  Tom Johnson and John Mooney, as well as other Spotlight professionals. They must not be allowed to continue to get away with this journalistic malpractice.

Here’s my final note today:

F – I did not miss that today was the first time that NJ Spotlight reported that there were “false claims that prepping for construction has caused an increase in whale deaths”

“FALSE CLAIMS”.

You must take some responsibility for the collapse of the wind program and the rise of false public opinion opposed to wind for killing whales.

Similarly, again today in TJ’s story about the grid and electrification, you AGAIN exaggerated the “costs” without any mention of the benefits (i.e. avoided costs of carbon’s AKA the social costs of carbon).

This is journalistic malpractice and propaganda. You are knowingly misleading readers.

Please forward this email to John Mooney and Tom Johnson with my demand that your coverage correct the record on the issues of costs and benefits.

And please take down those false paid advertisements about a “car ban”.

Wolfe