The Oil Drum

Glenn,

Thanks for posting on this report. I found it interesting that NYC chose to address "electricity" as a GHG source without going into any significant detail about what it actually represents. Appendix A is a lengthy discussion of how they aggregated the GHG contribution from electricity production without really saying what the breakdown is between coal, NG, oil, nuclear, hydro, etc. I think it would have been helpful if the report included a chart that showed the GHG emissions based on the source. For example, take Figure 6 and breakdown the fuels used to produce electricity and put them in the exisiting categories (create the new ones as necessary). How else to show how dependent NYC is on natural gas vs. nuclear or coal?

Also, this aside at the end of Appendix A warrants some attention:

Finally, it is important to single out the assumption that nuclear power is emissions free. Indian Point light water reactor is a significant source of electricity for New York City. Counting this source as having zero emissions has a sizable impact on the coefficient and on the entire city’s profile. While it is undisputed that there are no carbon dioxide emissions generated during the fission reaction itself, there is a significant amount of energy utilized in the mining, processing and enrichment of the uranium fuel used. Moreover, it is considered probable that over the next several decades these “upstream” energy costs associated with uranium fuel will increase significantly on a per-unit of fuel basis.

So, did they or didn't they include nuclear as zero emissions, or did they add a fudge factor?

The cynic in me says that the aggregation of "electricity" was in part intended to muddy the issue of nuclear's contrubution. The aside seems to make that argument. While I don't dispute the GHG contribution of uranium mining and processing, I don't see where NYC took the same approach regarding other fuels. IOW, did they tack on an additional 20% to represent the GHG emissions due to petroleum extraction and refining when they accounted for heating and motor fuels and the oil-fired component of electricity production? The report attributes zero GHG emissions to solar, but what about processing the silicon and manufacturing the PV panels?

It seems to me that some environmental dogma has crept into this report.

Lastly, mostly off-topic: How is NYC going to reduce its GHG emissions when they intend to air-condition the platforms on the new Second Avenue subway? Isn't that a luxury that we can't afford under the present circumstances?