You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Here’s another issue with the plume of smoke blotting out the sun.
Wildfire smoke is choking renewable energy.
The plume of smoke billowing from Quebec down the East Coast of the United States isn’t just endangering people’s health, it’s reducing solar power production by darkening the sky. While the areas affected by the smoke are not greatly dependent on solar for power, both New York and New England have aggressive targets for more solar installation in the coming years, which means their grids could become more reliant on a form of generation that’s at risk during wildfires.
To find out how badly solar power was being hit, I reached out to grid operators who cover an area stretching from North Carolina to Maine, the Hamptons to Chicago. They all said something similar: the wildfire smoke meant less solar power production.
As the New England Independent System Operator put it in a release: The smoke was “significantly lowering production from solar resources in the region.”
But there was a wrinkle. The smoke isn’t just reducing the yield from photovoltaic panels, it’s also making forecasting power demand more difficult. That’s because the smoke cover also lowers temperatures, which can reduce demand for the air conditioning that is largely responsible for higher electricity usage in the summer months.
“These two factors — decreased production from solar resources and decreased consumer demand due to lower temperatures — has made forecasting demand for grid electricity challenging,” ISO New England explained, which made it hard to say exactly what factor won out over the other.
Similar effects were felt in the Midwest, Dan Lockwood, a spokesperson for the PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that covers all or part of 13 states ranging from Northeast North Carolina to Chicago, told me in an email.
“Smoky conditions throughout the RTO this week have caused a reduction in visibility, reducing solar, and keeping temperatures several degrees lower than usual,” Lockwood said, although he also noted the uniqueness of the event made it “difficult to single out the effect of smoke alone.” He said the most comparable event was the summer of 2021, when western wildfire smoke floated through the Midwest and East Coast.
The New York Independent System Operator was able to put a figure on the solar production lost from the smoke. Andrew Gregory, a spokesperson for the New York ISO, said in an email that “total peak solar energy production … was 1,466 fewer megawatts than forecasted" on June 6 and 7, down about 25% from where they thought it would be. Those 1,466 megawatts would be enough to power around 250,000 homes, according to the Solar Energies Industries Association.
This is not unusual. California and Australia, which both have quickly growing solar sectors, have also experienced meaningful reductions in solar power production when they’ve been hit by severe wildfires.
One paper examining the 2020 wildfires on the West Coast found about “10%–30% reduction in solar power production during peak hours,” in California due to wildfire smoke. Not only did this mean a dirtier grid, it also wreaked havoc on planning done by the California Independent System Operation whose forecasts for electricity supply “did not include the effects of smoke and therefore overestimated the expected power production by [around] 10%–50%.”
These challenges will likely accumulate, the authors argue, as “a direct consequence of climate change is continued extreme biomass burning, which may lead to more frequent and intense smoke events.”
An Australian solar data company found that rooftop solar systems in Sydney and Canberra could see their output fall by 15 to 40 percent during hazy days. New South Wales, which includes Sydney, already gets 12.5 percent of its power from solar, according to the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment, and Water.
While fossil fuel power is by no mean immune to extreme weather — just look at natural gas getting frozen out during cold snaps — a wide variety of carbon-free electricity can be diminished by the very climate events they are supposed to help solve, whether it’s the sun disappearing behind clouds of wildfire smoke or hydroelectric power getting choked off by drought or rivers getting too warm to cool nuclear reactors. This will only become a bigger problem as the world gets hotter.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of this week’s top renewable energy fights across the country.
1. Otsego County, Michigan – The Mitten State is proving just how hard it can be to build a solar project in wooded areas. Especially once Fox News gets involved.
2. Atlantic County, New Jersey – Opponents of offshore wind in Atlantic City are trying to undo an ordinance allowing construction of transmission cables that would connect the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project to the grid.
3. Benton County, Washington – Sorry Scout Clean Energy, but the Yakima Nation is coming for Horse Heaven.
Here’s what else we’re watching right now…
In Connecticut, officials have withdrawn from Vineyard Wind 2 — leading to the project being indefinitely shelved.
In Indiana, Invenergy just got a rejection from Marshall County for special use of agricultural lands.
In Kansas, residents in Dickinson County are filing legal action against county commissioners who approved Enel’s Hope Ridge wind project.
In Kentucky, a solar project was actually approved for once – this time for the East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
In North Carolina, Davidson County is getting a solar moratorium.
In Pennsylvania, the town of Unity rejected a solar project. Elsewhere in the state, the developer of the Newton 1 solar project is appealing their denial.
In South Carolina, a state appeals court has upheld the rejection of a 2,300 acre solar project proposed by Coastal Pine Solar.
In Washington State, Yakima County looks like it’ll keep its solar moratorium in place.
And more of this week’s top policy news around renewables.
1. Trump’s Big Promise – Our nation’s incoming president is now saying he’ll ban all wind projects on Day 1, an expansion of his previous promise to stop only offshore wind.
2. The Big Nuclear Lawsuit – Texas and Utah are suing to kill the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to license small modular reactors.
3. Biden’s parting words – The Biden administration has finished its long-awaited guidance for the IRA’s tech-neutral electricity credit (which barely changed) and hydrogen production credit.
A conversation with J. Timmons Roberts, executive director of Brown University’s Climate Social Science Network
This week’s interview is with Brown University professor J. Timmons Roberts. Those of you familiar with the fight over offshore wind may not know Roberts by name, but you’re definitely familiar with his work: He and his students have spearheaded some of the most impactful research conducted on anti-offshore wind opposition networks. This work is a must-read for anyone who wants to best understand how the anti-renewables movement functions and why it may be difficult to stop it from winning out.
So with Trump 2.0 on the verge of banning offshore wind outright, I decided to ask Roberts what he thinks developers should be paying attention to at this moment. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Is the anti-renewables movement a political force the country needs to reckon with?
Absolutely. In my opinion it’s been unfortunate for the environmental groups, the wind development, the government officials, climate scientists – they’ve been unwilling to engage directly with those groups. They want to keep a very positive message talking about the great things that come with wind and solar. And they’ve really left the field open as a result.
I think that as these claims sit there unrefuted and naive people – I don’t mean naive in a negative sense but people who don’t know much about this issue – are only hearing the negative spin about renewables. It’s a big problem.
When you say renewables developers aren’t interacting here – are you telling me the wind industry is just letting these people run roughshod?
I’ve seen no direct refutation in those anti-wind Facebook groups, and there’s very few environmentalists or others. People are quite afraid to go in there.
But even just generally. This vast network you’ve tracked – have you seen a similar kind of counter mobilization on the part of those who want to build these wind farms offshore?
There’s some mobilization. There’s something called the New England for Offshore Wind coalition. There’s some university programs. There’s some other oceanographic groups, things like that.
My observation is that they’re mostly staff organizations and they’re very cautious. They’re trying to work as a coalition. And they’re going as slow as their most cautious member.
As someone who has researched these networks, what are you watching for in the coming year? Under the first year of Trump 2.0?
Yeah I mean, channeling my optimistic and Midwestern dad, my thought is that there may be an overstepping by the Trump administration and by some of these activists. The lack of viable alternative pathways forward and almost anti-climate approaches these groups are now a part of can backfire for them. Folks may say, why would I want to be supportive of your group if you’re basically undermining everything I believe in?
What do you think developers should know about the research you have done into these networks?
I think it's important for deciding bodies and the public, the media and so on, to know who they’re hearing when they hear voices at a public hearing or in a congressional field hearing. Who are the people representing? Whose voice are they advancing?
It’s important for these actors that want to advance action on climate change and renewables to know what strategies and the tactics are being used and also know about the connections.
One of the things you pointed out in your research is that, yes, there are dark money groups involved in this movement and there are outside figures involved, but a lot of this sometimes is just one person posts something to the internet and then another person posts something to the internet.
Does that make things harder when it comes to addressing the anti-renewables movement?
Absolutely. Social media’s really been devastating for developing science and informed, rational public policymaking. It’s so easy to create a conspiracy and false information and very slanted, partial information to shoot holes at something as big as getting us off of fossil fuels.
Our position has developed as we understand that indeed these are not just astro-turf groups created by some far away corporation but there are legitimate concerns – like fishing, where most of it is based on certainty – and then there are these sensationalized claims that drive fears. That fear is real. And it’s unfortunate.
Anything else you’d really like to tell our readers?
I didn’t really choose this topic. I feel like it really got me. It was me and four students sitting in my conference room down the hall and I said, have you heard about this group that just started here in Rhode Island that’s making these claims we should investigate? And students were super excited about it and have really been the leaders.