Turning New York Into Sun City

New York City, with its skyscrapers and dense, urban environment, may seem like an unlikely candidate for the expansion of solar power. Arizona, we are not.

But the truth is, we have a high ceiling for solar capability and an urgent need to work towards it.

Last year, at a hearing of the City Council's Infrastructure Task Force, experts and academics in the solar field estimated that half of our peak energy needs could be realistically met by harnessing the sun.

We'll need it: by 2012, our power needs will outstrip Con Edison's ability to meet the demand. By 2025, New York will require 150 percent of the power that Con Ed is currently able to provide.

What we know for sure is that we cannot meet those needs through yesterday's power-generation methods and simultaneously meet the City's goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

New York City's electricity-producing power plants are almost entirely powered by carbon-based fuels. They are old and inefficient, using 30 to 60 percent more fuel than they need to, which also leads to much higher costs for New Yorkers compared to power users in other cities.

The City will need to replace these plants over time. Unfortunately, Con Edison's rate payers will get stuck with the bill.

Recognizing this, New York City has in the last several years experimented in green energy, testing water current turbines in the East River to power buildings on Roosevelt Island, and seeking to install 2 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity on city-owned buildings.

That amount will more than double the City's current solar capacity, but will barely scratch the surface of the 13,000 MW that customers in the City use on an ordinary summer's day.

In order for New York to ramp up the use of alternative energy, we need to make it economically viable for the private sector to step in.

Recent changes in state law will make it easier for residents and businesses to install solar technology, and begin to use the electricity they generate themselves through "net metering" and "sell" the excess back to Con Edison.

Nevertheless, today, converting to solar power in New York is still hugely time-consuming, expensive and full of unknowns -- about everything from the capacity of the grid to how long it could take to perform necessary analysis. Not surprisingly, these hurdles are challenging the determination of even the City's most dedicated environmentalists and motivated entrepreneurs.

It's time for us to streamline the process by creating what I call "solar empowerment zones."

Away from the urban density of midtown Manhattan, New York City's industrial areas comprise huge swaths of low-rise, flat-roofed buildings conducive to solar installation. Local and state government, partnering with Con Edison, can identify these areas, determine their solar capacity, answer the unknowns about the infrastructure, and help to create cooperatives to disperse the investment costs.

By tackling large, high-potential areas, we can create economies of scale and convert to alternative energy at an exponential rather than an incremental rate.

Once we eliminate the barriers and provide the right incentives, the benefits will be felt across the system as solar power in these high-use areas relieves pressure on our grid. Con Ed's costs (and the costs for rate payers) are highest when demand is at its peak -- exactly when solar is most useful.

And by creating a market for solar where it will be most effective, solar empowerment zones can help drive down the cost of installing photovoltaic panels and performing infrastructure upgrades, helping to spur its growth beyond the industrial sector.

A consortium of city agencies, academic institutions and non-profit organizations is currently pursuing federal funds that could help get solar empowerment zones off the ground.

Without bold action, we will lose valuable time in our local fight against global warming. If our power demands do eventually surpass our supply, it will be lights out on New York's position as a global and cultural leader.

But if we continue to move forward, New York can be a model for how major cities can adapt to the demands of climate change. New York, skyscrapers and all, can still be one of the world's leading "solar cities."

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

Well, let's do a laugh test!

New York city residents used 4696kWh per capita in 2000-2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City

This stacks up very nicely against the rest of the US and given New York's population density of 840/km^2, the total electricity demand would be on the order of 3,944,640 kWh/km^2 per year. On average that would require a generation capacity of 450kW/km^2. Given that a typical solar array can generate approx. 20W/m^2, this can be accomplished with a mere 22500m^2, which is about 5-6 acres, no more than 2.5% of the cities area.

That's entirely possible, although it would require an enormous investment to generate a significant amount of New York's electricity with solar panels.

[texfly]

Kill
I think you must have err'd somewhere. First I think, the 4696 kWh per customer (not capita) is probably for residential, not commercial use. My guess is the actual electrical use of NYC is much much greater due to businesses. The other thing you may or may not have considered is the ave solar flux in NYC (~450 W/m2) and that the sun only shines at that flux for maybe 6 hrs/day. Using the 13 GW/summer day quoted in the article above and your 20 W/m2 solar cell output you quoted I get 13e9W/20 W-per-m2 = 650e6 m2 of solar panels. With 6hr/day useful sun we'd need 4 x 650e6 or 2.6e9 m2 of solar panels to handle the hot summer day. That's about 1000 sq-miles of solar panels, roughly 3.3 times the area of NYC.

I really am for renewable energy, but the push to highly-distributed solar PV seems premature, if not a pipe dream. Let's put wind where we can (Plains states and mtn ridges, east and west) and solar in the desert southwest (solar thermal first, then PV when efficiency warrants it). The two can solve our energy demands for a long time, but we need a grid that is seamless (no political nor economic barriers for piping electrons around the country).

[condor101]

Pass legislation for property owners to get grants and substantial tax savings on solar panel installation and you will have your solar city in New York. Unfortunately, monopolies like ConEd will not let it happen. They are in the business of selling us gas and electricity. With their billions of dollars for advertising and political influence (lobbying bribes), they will not let such legislation move forward.
New York is so backward and regressive. I'm taking my business, myself and my tax dollars to a progressive state like California. In the San Francisco area, the government is working for the benefit of the people. It's a progressive and forward thinking environment. The mayor of san francisco is amazing; He has passed legislation for low cost health coverage, a ban on plastic bags, and huge tax incentives for solar panel installations. Northern CA is many years ahead of the corrupt beauracracy of New York State.
The only reason the population of NY increases is because of the large influx of immigrants. The job market is aweful in this region and the salaries have been stagnant for years, while the costs of everything continually increases. I have seen a large number of New Yorkers leave this state for better opportunities. And I'm joining those ranks very soon.

[sheila]

why don't you establish streamlined processes and generous feed in tariffs, so that individuals, not Con Ed, can benefit from a renewable energy economy? for those of us familiar with the terrain of clean, democratic power, all these attempts to greenwash Big Energy boondoggles are transparently un-helpful. You have hundreds of thousands of privately owned structures in your state, many of which are suitable for production of solar power. why not pay them to produce clean energy, and let Con Ed serve as a load-balancing and storage service instead of an energy-production monopolist?

Democracy and the built environment need to be the focal points of any "clean energy" moves. so far, Salazar, Reid, Schwarzenegger and the other Big Energy shills in our government have been desperately trying to cram Big Energy handouts and widespread wilderness death into a "green suit" and it isn't working. Big Energy profits are not sacrosanct to anyone but those who take their money in exchange for favorable legislation.

[roseau]

If NYC is anything like my home, my workplace, my town then conservation can have as much impact in the next 5 years as any other measure. Conservation can have more impact in one year than anything else. In New York City there are millions of lights on in office buildings at night, lights that burn in the towers where cost is not an issue for that particular business apparently. Apartment buildings in Europe have used motion sensors and timer switches (that give you 4 minutes from the time you push it on for instance) in public areas. Devices and appliances that enable consumers and businesses to use energy at off-peak times need to be made cheaper or even free, because when you talk about needing 150% of the energy Con Ed can make you are actually just talking about peak use times. The rest of the day the current capacity would suffice. Con-Ed needs to get in the business of helping everyone con-serve.