The B.L. England Generating Station was decommissioned in 2019 after its owners failed to get approval for a 22-mile gas pipeline from Millville to Beesley’s Point.
The former plant’s boiler units were imploded April 21. In September 2022, the hyperboloid cooling tower was imploded. In pieces, the plant that supplied 450 megawatts of electric energy is disappearing. Meanwhile, an agreement has been reached to adjust the location of an electric substation at Beesley’s Point for use as a grid connection point for energy from offshore wind.
These actions together are symbolic of the transformation underway to move the state aggressively into renewable energy sources in the next decade. State and federal officials are moving at a breakneck pace, seeming content to believe that the various technological breakthroughs required for this transformation to succeed will appear as we move down the road to 2040, supplying what we need when we need it.
Are we really wiseto be creating economic incentives for the retreat of investment in traditional energy sources so soon? The path to 100% clean energy in a matter of a few years does us no good if it does not work. There are three broad problem areas that are behind the more thoughtful opposition to the current frantic investment in renewable energy.
Renewable Energy Generation
The overall strategy for a clean energy future is heavily dependent on electrification. Of course, the use of electricity for just about everything does not accomplish the goals unless we change the way electricity is generated. The most recent data from the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that 46% of New Jersey’s electricity is generated by natural gas and 44% by nuclear power.
We are talking about replacing the generation from natural gas. We have had no investments in new nuclear generation. Funds have been allocated to keep the state’s three remaining aging nuclear plants from closing for at least a few years. But nothing meaningful is being done to extend the role of nuclear power.
So, we are going to drive the state’s clean energy goals from renewable sources that today contribute minuscule amounts of the state’s overall energy profile. We are going to do this by 2035, 2040 or 2050 depending on which goal one references.
We need to keep in mind that New Jersey already uses more electricity than it produces. The call for 100% clean energy by 2050 depends on importing renewable energy from other states.
Look just for a moment at the state goals for wind energy, the source for renewable energy that most impacts Cape May County. The original goal in 2018 was 3500 megawatts (MW) by 2030. That goal was then increased to 7500 MW by 2035. In September 2022, the goal was again increased to 11,000 MW by 2040. All these ever more ambitious goals come without the construction of even a pilot wind farm offshore.
We are somehow by 2050 going to have our energy needs in the state met by solar, wind, small scale hydroelectric and waste-to-energy facilities. Count on it. Take it to the bank. Really?
The Grid
The electric grid represents one of the largest obstacles to the “electrify everything” scenario next to actually generating the necessary energy levels through renewable sources.
First, rid yourself of the concept that there is one large, unified grid just waiting for all the added capacity that electric power generation plants will have to produce. The task is not just replacing fossil fuel generation at today’s capacity levels, but also providing the added capacity that the electrification of sectors like transportation will require.
The energy must be distributed, and the grid is the mechanism for that distribution. The grid is really made up of three, disconnected grids across the continental U.S. There are 12 different transportation planning regions within those three grids. Add to this the EIA estimate of 7,300 power plants, nearly 160,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and millions of miles of lower-voltage distribution lines and transformers.
The grid is aging and not prepared for the load the strategy says it must carry. The consulting firm McKinsey says, “The energy transition will require a dramatic increase in capital spending on the electric grid, delivered at an unprecedented pace.”
Grid Management
The third area of concern is grid management. The overall strategy of electrification relies on an outdated and highly fragmented grid management system. With renewables, we are also told that grid system must be ready to support an increase in sharing across states.
Consider Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022 and the ability of grid management to meet the needs.
PJM Interconnection coordinates the movement of electricity through 13 states and the District of Columbia. New Jersey is one of those states. During Winter Storm Elliott, 45,124 megawatts of electricity was unexpectedly offline within the PJM area. According to a report just two weeks ago, PJM is preparing to issue up to $2 billion in penalties for power plant owners who failed to meet their capacity obligations.
Is this grid management system what we need when we place everything at risk with electrification of transportation, residential and other critical sectors of our economy and our homes? No one is really addressing the issue, at least in front of the public.
What is Happening Here?
We are moving at an ever more rapid pace toward renewable energy sources that we know have problems with consistent supply of power. We are linking to a grid structure that experts admit badly needs modernization. All of this is then to be overseen by a fragmented grid management system that has yet to prove it can handle the increased capacity demands that come with growing electrification of home heating and transportation.
We know we are entering into a transition that cannot go smoothly. There are too many moving parts for that. We are also told that pursuing renewable energy sources may be our best means of averting the worst effects of climate change.
But we will not get do-overs. We have one shot to get a transition like this right. Given the level of disinvestment that is occurring in other sources of power, failure could be catastrophic.
Skepticism in light of what is happening around us is not only justified, it is essential. We are moving too rapidly, some would argue recklessly, into an energy transition fraught with major problems that need to be solved.
We need to slow down. Even if one accepts all the arguments for why speed is important, the reality is that major disruptions are coming for which we need plans and options. Taking things at a slower pace may actually be the winning strategy in the long run. It gives a better chance for all the moving parts to come together reasonably. Most importantly, it provides time and framework for winning the public to the strategy.
Think of Lincoln’s insight when he struggled with the great crisis of the union. “Public sentiment is everything,” he said. “With it nothing can fail, without it nothing can succeed.”
