Informative content. I did not realize Ithaca was trying to do this. I think Boulder Colorado tried something similar (maybe more 'smart grid'?) a decade ago and it also failed.
In my view the main failure was over-optimistic financial models but mainly under-appreciation of the practical engineering and logistic realities of dealing with old existing infrastructure.
These kinds of failures happen over and over again, because the proponents are non technical and even dismissive of the practical technical realities that need to be addressed.
Spreadsheet engineering + TED talks are recipe for failure.
It's as if progressive leadership is actively hostile to affordable energy and housing. I don't think a single person advocating for any of this has read more than the (journalism-filtered) press releases of the IPCC. The actual case for "urgency" in all of this is much, much weaker or altogether debatable re: catastrophic unmanageable outcomes if one gets into the data. It strikes me as unserious that so many large-scale changes are pendant such shallow analysis, but then again Germany has shown us the way there re: energy... :(
One big bone I have to pick with these supposed Net Zero city or jurisdiction projects is that they rely mostly if not entirely on wind and/or solar power for their energy supply, by using creative accounting. They way overbuild the wind & solar, so they export the vast majority of their generation, which they count as "zero emissions energy" but they don't count all the fossil electricity they import when the wind & solar crap out, which is most of the time.
By that criteria, easy to create a Net Zero city, just find a Nuclear Power plant, draw a circle around that plant that consumes the same amount of energy that the NPP delivers and presto you have a Net Zero electrified city.
Informative content. I did not realize Ithaca was trying to do this. I think Boulder Colorado tried something similar (maybe more 'smart grid'?) a decade ago and it also failed.
In my view the main failure was over-optimistic financial models but mainly under-appreciation of the practical engineering and logistic realities of dealing with old existing infrastructure.
These kinds of failures happen over and over again, because the proponents are non technical and even dismissive of the practical technical realities that need to be addressed.
Spreadsheet engineering + TED talks are recipe for failure.
Any plan to electrify everything by depending on wind and solar will fail.
Unsurprisingly, Berkeley is not far behind in the realm of misguided "green transitions". https://www.berkeleyside.org/2025/02/18/berkeley-city-council-proposed-beso-amendments
It's as if progressive leadership is actively hostile to affordable energy and housing. I don't think a single person advocating for any of this has read more than the (journalism-filtered) press releases of the IPCC. The actual case for "urgency" in all of this is much, much weaker or altogether debatable re: catastrophic unmanageable outcomes if one gets into the data. It strikes me as unserious that so many large-scale changes are pendant such shallow analysis, but then again Germany has shown us the way there re: energy... :(
And the UK kindly providing similar "leadership".
100%. Many such cases, sadly. I always assumed the pain point for a more pragmatic energy policy would be lower, but alas no...
One big bone I have to pick with these supposed Net Zero city or jurisdiction projects is that they rely mostly if not entirely on wind and/or solar power for their energy supply, by using creative accounting. They way overbuild the wind & solar, so they export the vast majority of their generation, which they count as "zero emissions energy" but they don't count all the fossil electricity they import when the wind & solar crap out, which is most of the time.
By that criteria, easy to create a Net Zero city, just find a Nuclear Power plant, draw a circle around that plant that consumes the same amount of energy that the NPP delivers and presto you have a Net Zero electrified city.