ECONOMICS OF RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

Proponents, including installers of solar systems, present many numbers, usually in not too clear a format, to show how profitable it is to have solar on your roof.

 

This article presents a spreadsheet analysis of two plans:

 

- Plan A, the Standard Plan, which is to invest in a rooftop solar system.

- Plan B, the Warren Buffett Plan, which is to invest in shares of AT&T that pay a dividend.

 

Comparison of Plan A and Plan B

 

With Plan A, in year 25, homeowner would have had a gain of $10,520, but would have a 25-y old system that, to repeat the cycle, would need to be replaced within about 5 years.

 

With Plan B, in year 25, homeowner would have an asset of $52,078 that is increasing in value, plus a dividend income of $2,497 that is increasing each year.

 

Plan A is a loser for homeowners. It would be much better for homeowners not to get caught up in a smoke and mirrors CO2-reduction charade. For homeowners, Plan B is far superior.

 

Plan A is a loser for society regarding the minuscule, 27-y CO2 emissions reduction of 49.77 metric ton at a very high cost of $637/metric ton.

 

Unlike Plan A, Plan B requires no federal and state subsidies, no feed in tariffs, and no unfair cost shifting to other ratepayers and taxpayers.

 

PLAN A, The Standard Plan

 

A 25-y spreadsheet analysis is presented for a 5 kW residential, rooftop, net-metered, solar system. The analysis, including the generous 30% federal investment tax credit, ITC, and generous 18 c/kWh net-metering tariff, shows:

 

- The amortizing of the $17,500 system cost, at 5%/y for 25y, totals $31,714 (unsubsidized)

- The amortizing of the $12,250 loan, at 5%/y for 25y, totals $22,195 (subsidized)

- The gain from avoided electricity purchases totals $17,527

- The gain from electricity sold to utility totals $15,188

- The net gain totals $1001 (unsubsidized), $10,520 (subsidized). See tables 1, 1A, 2, and 3

 

Table 1 shows the unsubsidized and subsidized 25-y values

 

Table 1

Unsubsidized

Subsidized

Avoided electricity purchases

17527

17527

Gain from electricity sold to utility

15188

15188

Total benefit

32715

32715

Amortized cost

31714

22195

25-y gain

1001

10520

NOTE: The federal tax credit is due to decrease from 30%, to 26, 22, and 0 percent in 2020, 2012, and 2022, respectively, and the net-metering feed-in tariffs are due to be decreased in the near future, as they are overly generous, and have become a too big cost item for utilities, which have complained, the net-metering program is their most expensive energy source. For example, GMP’s cost of net-metered electricity is 21.813 c/kWh. NE midday solar wholesale prices are about 6 c/kWh. See URLs.

 

https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/path_act_sum...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

NOTE: The Vermont net-metering scheme reduces the taxes, fees and surcharges on the monthly bills of the solar system owners. This burden is unfairly shifted to other ratepayers and taxpayers. That is not the case in Germany where owners have two meters; one records production, all of which is sold to the utility at 12 eurocent/kWh (2018 tariff for residential rooftop), and the other meter records consumption, which is charged at the regular rate of about 30 eurocent/kWh, including all taxes, fees and surcharges. There is no unfair burden shifting to other ratepayers and taxpayers.

Cost of Electricity

 

The 25-y production totals 146,875 kWh

The 25-y average cost of producing the electricity would be 22195/146875 = 15.1 c/kWh (subsidized); would be 31714/146875 = 21.6 c/kWh (unsubsidized). See table 1.

 

Not included are the costs of:

- Inverter replacement in about year 10 and 20; about $1000 for a good quality inverter each time. The inverter converts the DC output of the panels to AC.

- Any O&M costs, replacement parts and service contract during the 25 years.

 

CO2 Emissions Reduction

 

The closing of Vermont Yankee increased NE grid CO2 emissions from 28 million ton in 2014 to 30.2 million ton in 2015. See URL. The NE System CO2 intensity was 730, 726, and 747 lb/MWh in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, based on primary energy, about 8% higher, based on source energy. See table 1.1 in URL.

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/01/2015_emissio...

http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2016/01/2014_emission...

 

The 25-y CO2 emissions reduction would be 146875/1000 x 747/2204.62 = 49.77 metric ton, if the grid CO2 intensity remains unchanged. It likely will become less as more wind and solar added.

The cost to reduce CO2 emissions would be 31714/49.77 = $637/metric ton (unsubsidized)

This is off the charts expensive and unsustainable. The net-metering program should be immediately ended.

 

PLAN B, The Warren Buffett Plan

 

- Homeowner uses the same annual amounts, but invests in shares of AT&T ($33/share, dividend $2.00/share).

- In year 1, $888 would buy 26.909 shares, and would earn dividends of $53.82 + $3.26, reinvested dividends. 

- In year 2, dividends would be $107.64 + $6.46, reinvested dividends, etc.

- Accumulated income at end of year 25 would be $15,924  

- The shares bought with investments would be 482.629

- The shares bought with reinvested dividends would be 293.700

- Total shares would be 776.329, each worth $67, a total asset of $52,078

- Total dividend income in year 25 would be 776.329 x 3.22 = $2497. See table 4.

Detailed Spreadsheet Calculations

PLAN A, The Standard Plan

Below are some spreadsheet calculations for a 5 kW residential, rooftop, net-metered, solar system. The parameters are shown in table 1A.

 

Not shown is the inverter replacement in about year 10. The inverter converts the DC output of the panels to AC.

Also not shown are any O&M costs and service contract costs.

Solar systems are exempt from sales and property taxes in Vermont.

The loan period and the warranty period were assumed at 25 years.

The system continues to degrade beyond year 25.

 

- If the federal tax credit were ended, the borrowed amount would be greater and for about the first 6 years the net benefit would be negligible

- The avoided electricity payments increase as rates increase.

- Selling surplus to the utility becomes less lucrative as production decreases and the net metering rate is kept constant.

- The net benefit for the first year is - 888, loan payment + 450, avoided electricity cost + 675, net-metered = $237

 

Table 1A/Solar system

kW

5

Cost

$/kW

3500

Turnkey Cost

$

17500

Federal tax credit

0.30

5250

Net Turnkey Cost

$

12250

Degradation

%/y

0.5

Production, new

kWh/y

6250

Self-use

kWh

2500

Net-metered

c/kWh

18

Loan

$

12250

Interest

%/y

5

Term

y

25

The loan payoff schedule, system degradation at 0.5%/y, annual production, assumed annual self-use and electric rate escalating at 3.5%/y are shown in table 2

 

Table 2

Principal

Principal

Interest

Total

Degradation

Production

Self-use

Electric rate

Year

$

$/y

$/y

$/y

kWh/y

kWh/y

c/kWh

1

12250

275

613

888

1.000

6250

2500

18.0

2

11975

289

599

888

0.995

6219

2500

18.6

3

11686

304

584

888

0.990

6188

2500

19.3

4

11382

319

569

888

0.985

6156

2500

20.0

5

11063

335

553

888

0.980

6125

2500

20.7

6

10729

351

536

888

0.975

6094

2500

21.4

7

10378

369

519

888

0.970

6063

2500

22.1

8

10009

387

500

888

0.965

6031

2500

22.9

9

9621

407

481

888

0.960

6000

2500

23.7

10

9214

427

461

888

0.955

5969

2500

24.5

11

8787

448

439

888

0.950

5938

2500

25.4

12

8339

471

417

888

0.945

5906

2500

26.3

13

7868

494

393

888

0.940

5875

2500

27.2

14

7374

519

369

888

0.935

5844

2500

28.2

15

6855

545

343

888

0.930

5813

2500

29.1

16

6310

572

315

888

0.925

5781

2500

30.2

17

5737

601

287

888

0.920

5750

2500

31.2

18

5136

631

257

888

0.915

5719

2500

32.3

19

4505

663

225

888

0.910

5688

2500

33.4

20

3843

696

192

888

0.905

5656

2500

34.6

21

3147

730

157

888

0.900

5625

2500

35.8

22

2417

767

121

888

0.895

5594

2500

37.1

23

1650

805

82

888

0.890

5563

2500

38.4

24

845

846

42

888

0.885

5531

2500

39.7

25

-1

888

0

888

0.880

5500

2500

41.1

The avoided electricity payments, the revenue from net metering, and the net benefit are shown in table 3.

 

Avoided

Sold to utility

Revenue

Net Benefit

Table 3

 

 

 

$/y

kWh/y

$/y

$/y

450

3750

675

237

466

3719

669

247

482

3688

664

258

499

3656

658

269

516

3625

653

281

534

3594

647

294

553

3563

641

307

573

3531

636

320

593

3500

630

335

613

3469

624

350

635

3438

619

366

657

3406

613

382

680

3375

608

400

704

3344

602

418

728

3313

596

437

754

3281

591

457

780

3250

585

478

808

3219

579

499

836

3188

574

522

865

3156

568

545

895

3125

563

570

927

3094

557

596

959

3063

551

623

993

3031

546

651

1027

3000

540

680

PLAN B, The Warren Buffett Plan

Below is the table of Plan B, The Warren Buffett Plan. The last two columns are shares bought with reinvested dividends and income from those shares.

 

Reinvest Dividends

Year

Invest

Share Incr

AT&T price

Shares

Div Incr

Dividend

Div Inc

Div Inc

Shares

Div Inc

%/y

$/share

%/y

$/share

$/y

$/y

1

888

33.00

26.909

2.00

53.82

53.82

1.631

3.26

2

888

3

33.99

26.125

2

2.04

53.30

107.64

3.167

6.46

3

888

3

35.01

25.364

2

2.08

52.78

159.89

4.567

9.50

4

888

3

36.06

24.626

2

2.12

52.27

211.11

5.854

12.43

5

888

3

37.14

23.908

2

2.16

51.76

261.33

7.036

15.23

6

888

3

38.26

23.212

2

2.21

51.26

310.55

8.118

17.93

7

888

3

39.40

22.536

2

2.25

50.76

358.79

9.106

20.51

8

888

3

40.59

21.880

2

2.30

50.27

406.07

10.005

22.99

9

888

3

41.80

21.242

2

2.34

49.78

452.39

10.822

25.36

10

888

3

43.06

20.624

2

2.39

49.29

497.77

11.561

27.63

11

888

3

44.35

20.023

2

2.44

48.82

542.24

12.226

29.81

12

888

3

45.68

19.440

2

2.49

48.34

585.79

12.824

31.89

13

888

3

47.05

18.873

2

2.54

47.87

628.44

13.357

33.88

14

888

3

48.46

18.324

2

2.59

47.41

670.21

13.830

35.78

15

888

3

49.92

17.790

2

2.64

46.95

711.11

14.246

37.60

16

888

3

51.41

17.272

2

2.69

46.49

751.16

14.610

39.33

17

888

3

52.96

16.769

2

2.75

46.04

790.35

14.925

40.98

18

888

3

54.54

16.280

2

2.80

45.59

828.72

15.194

42.55

19

888

3

56.18

15.806

2

2.86

45.15

866.27

15.419

44.05

20

888

3

57.87

15.346

2

2.91

44.71

903.01

15.605

45.47

21

888

3

59.60

14.899

2

2.97

44.28

938.95

15.754

46.82

22

888

3

61.39

14.465

2

3.03

43.85

974.12

15.868

48.10

23

888

3

63.23

14.044

2

3.09

43.42

1008.51

15.949

49.32

24

888

3

65.13

13.635

2

3.15

43.00

1042.14

16.001

50.46

25

888

3

67.08

13.237

2

3.22

42.58

1075.02

16.025

51.55

Totals

22195

482.629

15135.39

293.700

788.86

Div total

15924.25

Shares total

776.329

Income y-25

2497

Asset y-25

52078

APPENDIX 1

Residential Rooftop Solar in Vermont

 

The Vermont load is about 6000 GWh/y, or 6 billion kWh/y.

About 300 million kWh/y/(8766 h/y x 0.14) = 244,450 kW of panels would be needed for 5% of the Vermont load.

The rooftop systems would cost 244,450 kW x $3500/kW =  $0.86 billion 

About 244,450/5 = 48,890 rooftop systems would be needed, if each house had 5 kW of panels.

 

Remember, only the south facing roofs are useful for solar. 

About 30% of all roofs are south facing, and not all of them qualify, as they may be too small, shaded by trees, etc.

Eliminating unsuitable roofs, at most 10% of ALL roofs can be used.

Vermont’s freestanding houses would not have enough residential roof space for 5% of the Vermont load.

Thus, large-scale, field-mounted solar systems, up to 5000 kW, have to be used.

APPENDIX 2

Exploiting Fear of Climate Change Benefits Multi-Millionaire Owners

 

The wind turbine power plant is owned by Deepwater Wind LLC, a part of the D. E. Shaw Group, a global investment and technology firm with $38 billion of invested capital as of July 1, 2016. Multi-millionaires, with lucrative, risk-free, tax shelters, put up the capital and expect high, mostly tax-free returns.

 

Wall Street financial services providers saw a huge opportunity for tax shelter business. So they told Congress exactly what laws to pass to make happen wind and solar, etc.. The US public was subjected to a media blitz the world was burning up and coming to an end.

 

The US Congress, under pressure of Wall Street, passed tax laws favorable to wind and solar, etc., to enable tax-free returns possible. 

 

Various government agencies performed “studies” with dire climate change predictions, and/or gave grants to “independent” entities to make studies with similar predictions, to convince the public the end of the world would be near, unless…. 

 

Publications, such as the business- friendly New York Times and Wall Street Journal, published mostly favorable articles about wind and solar. The public was told all was done to save the world. 

 

NOTE: Warren Buffett, considered one of the outstanding investors of all-time, has stated: “On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit”. Buffett has investments in multiple wind sites, as do many other multi-billion dollar entities. Buffett and his cohorts hire tax accountants/lawyers to refine the subsidy-milking art form, as well as PR pros and RE lobbyists to continually increase the milking, via higher RPS targets and renewed subsidy periods.

APPENDIX 3

Vermont has an anemic, near-zero, real-growth economy, which does not produce enough tax revenues year after year, partially due to the huge RE giveaways, such as: 

 

  1. Federal and state ITCs; upfront giveaways to offset any taxes. 
  2. Federal and state taxes not paid due to rapid depreciation write-offs during the first 6 years 
  3. Federal and state taxes not paid due to loan interest deducted from taxable profits.
  4. School portion of property taxes not paid; households have to pay more.
  5. State sales taxes not paid on some solar system components.
  6. ALL electricity sold to utilities at 13 - 14.5 c/kWh (large-scale, field-mounted solar, mostly owned by multi-millionaires); NE midday wholesale prices are about 6 c/kWh.
  7. Excess electricity sold to utilities at about 19 c/kWh (residential, roof-mounted, mostly owned by rate payers); NE household rates are about 19 c/kWh.

 

The state giving ITC money (extracted from already over-burdened taxpayers) to the tax shelters of multi-millionaires, who own the larger systems, and not collecting taxes due to rapid depreciation write-offs, etc., has resulted in contributing to chronic budget deficits.

 

The state legalizing above subsidies has resulted in higher NE electric rates than they would have been.

 

APPENDIX 4

Money received by investors in the early years, such as upfront federal and state ITCs, is always better than in later years.

The SO projects are structured to provide a risk-free internal rate of return (IRR) of about 9%/y, which is similar to an electrical utility in Vermont, such as GMP. It is quite generous compared to long-term interest rates of 4.5%/y.

During the first 6 years of a solar project, the economic cost is 27.1 c/kWh (using only 3 of the above 6 subsidies to simplify the analysis). Because of rapid solar build-outs, a substantial part of the installed solar capacity is less than 6 years old, and therefore in 27.1 c/kWh mode, in New England. The same is true for wind projects. Wind and solar projects in this mode act as a major drag on economic growth.

 

The above average of 27.1 c/kWh for the first 6 years and average of 13.036 c/kWh for 25 years, are the highly subsidized costs, which excludesthe costs of externalities that are shifted.

 

http://www.theenergycollective.com/energy-innovation-llc/2420282/ra...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-true-cost-of-solar-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-true-cost-of-wind-e...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

 

APPENDIX 5

Various Subsidies for Wind and Solar

Because of the various subsidies, taxpayers and rate payers are forced to pay 1) higher monthly electricity bills, 2) higher prices for goods and services, and 2) taxes to finance various subsidies for wind, solar and other RE producers. Here is a partial list:

 

- The federal ITC, 30% of the qualified portion of the turnkey capital cost. The federal ITC is an upfront, tax credit that can be applied against any of owner’s taxes.

- The state ITC, usually a percentage of the federal ITC. The state ITC is an upfront, tax credit that can be applied against any of owner’s taxes.

- The federal production tax credit, PTC, of 2.4 c/kWh for the first 10 years of operation, a subsidy of 2.4/5 = 48% of the US average wholesale price. No wonder owners are crowing about underbidding traditional generating plants. For example, in areas with good winds, low construction costs and low operation and maintenance costs (Texas, Great Plains), if an owner’s cost is 7.3 c/kWh and he deducts 2.4 c/kWh as PTC, then his bid price could be 4.9 c/kWh, which is sufficient to get the contract, in most cases, and “competitive” with traditional plants.

- The federal and state tax savings due to rapid depreciation write-offs in about 5 to 6 years, much more rapid than normal utility equipment write-off schedules of 10 to 20 years. Having tax savings earlier, instead of later, is financially more advantageous.

- The exemption of equipment purchases from the state sales tax and from the education property tax.

- Selling wind electricity at generous feed in tariffs of about 9 - 10 c/kWh in areas with high capital costs and low capacity factors (CFs), such as New England.

- Selling solar electricity at generous feed in tariffs of about 13.5 - 14.5 c/kWh in areas with high capital costs and low capacity factors, such as New England.

- Selling renewable energy credits, RECs, which lower the utility purchased RE energy cost by up to 50%.

- Loan guarantees by the federal and state government, which lower the interest rate of the funds borrowed from private entities, because the federal and state government assume the risk of the loans.

APPENDIX 6

Comparison of Nuclear and Solar Cost/kWh and CO2 Emission Reduction Cost/metric ton: If a 1000 MW nuclear plant, turnkey cost $5000/kW, amortized at 5%/y over 60y, the amortized cost would be $15,893,400,000; the 60-y production would be 473,365,000,000 kWh, at 0.90 capacity factor, or 3.3575 c/kWh; if O&M and fuel would be 3.3575 c/kWh, total cost would be 6.7200 c/kWh.

 

CO2 emissions reduction would be 60-y production in kWh/1000 x 747 lb/MWh/2204.62 = 160,391,772 metric ton, or $99.1/metric ton, amortizing + $99.1/metric ton, O&M and fuel = $198.2/metric ton. This compares with residential rooftop solar at 21.6 c/kWh and $637/metric ton

NOTE: Remember, nuclear electricity and wind and solar electricity are not comparable. Variable and intermittent wind and solar electricity cannot exist on any electric grid without the traditional, dispatchable, flexible, generators, primarily gas turbine plants, performing the peaking, filling-in and balancing. Also nuclear plants can be designed to be base-loaded (lowest c/kWh), or to vary their outputs to follow the daily demand curve (higher c/kWh), as France has proven for 40 years.

APPENDIX 7

The Tesla Powerwall 2.0, AC version, has a turnkey installed cost of about $8600

Battery operating cost = $8600/37800 kWh = 0.23 c/kWh; neglected costs are amortizing loan interest, and any operating and maintenance charges.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-2-warranty/

 

As the battery ages, its internal resistance, milli-Ohm, will increase (its charge loss of about 0.35 in year 1 will increase to about 0.70 in year 10), and its capacity to store energy, kWh, will decrease (not exceeding 30% by year 10, per Tesla warrantee). Its energy throughput per day is greater in year 1 than in year 10. Such decrease in performance adversely affects the battery system economics. See figure 7 in URL, which shows degradation and resistance increase for only 40000 h, or 4.56 y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191731190X

 

When new:

- Its AC to AC efficiency = 0.978, AC to DC x 0.965, charge loss x 0.965, discharge loss x 0.978, DC to AC = 0.89

- Its stored charge is about 13.5/0.7 = 19.28 kWh; not all charge is available for discharge

- It can deliver 13.5 kWh x 0.978, DC to AC conversion = 13.2 kWh as AC

 

At end of year 10:

- It can deliver about 13.5 x 0.7, degradation factor x 0.978, DC to AC = 9.24 kWh as AC, per Tesla warrantee.

- Its efficiency = 0.978, AC to DC x 0.93, charge loss x 0.93, discharge loss x 0.978, DC to AC = 0.83

- Its energy throughput shall be limited 37800 kWh or less, per Tesla warrantee; if greater, warrantee is void.

Views: 209

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on June 1, 2018 at 7:49am

Art,

Residential Rooftop Solar in Vermont

 

The Vermont load is about 6000 GWh/y, or 6 billion kWh/y.

About 300 million kWh/y/(8766 h/y x 0.14) = 244,450 kW of panels would be needed for 5% of the Vermont load.

The rooftop systems would cost 244,450 kW x $3500/kW =  $0.86 billion  

About 244,450/5 = 48,890 rooftop systems would be needed, if each house had 5 kW of panels.

 

Remember, only the south facing roofs are useful for solar. 

About 30% of all roofs are south facing, and not all of them qualify, as they may be too small, shaded by trees, etc.

Eliminating unsuitable roofs, at most 10% of ALL roofs can be used.

Vermont's freestanding houses would not have enough residential roof space for 5% of the Vermont load.

Thus, large-scale field-mounted solar systems, up to 5000 kW, have to be used.

Comment by Art Brigades on May 31, 2018 at 2:16pm

If we continue to be in the business of incentivizing or mandating solar generation, what is the potential public good that can be accomplished? 

Say we set a statewide goal… 

To install 8 solar panels on every Maine house.  

How will our big goal play out?  How do we get there, how much will it cost, and how will it look? 

Most importantly, what can/will it accomplish? 

Below are some figures that help give a perspective on this last question.

If there are about 600,000 single family homes in Maine, 8.4 panels on every roof would produce:

 

1% of the ISO-New England load

The math:

Assume ISO-NE Load = 15,000 MWH

Goal:   15000 x 1% = 150 MWH generated from Maine Solar panels

To generate 150 MWH we need 1000 MW of installed solar capacity, assuming a 15% Capacity Factor

It takes 28,000  (standard 250 kwh) rooftop solar panels to generate 1 MWH of electricity.

To reach our 1% goal, generating 150 MWH,  we'll need 4.2 million panels.  (28,000 x 150 = 4,200,000)  

How much will 4.2 million solar panels cost?  

At $1000 per panel, $4.2 billion

 

That’s what it would look like to add 1% more grid electricity from solar in Maine.  Bear in mind that 1% additional power from solar can never actually replace conventional generation on a 1:1 basis because conventional thermal generators need to stand ready (burn fuel to maintain steam) in case the sun fails to shine.

With total New England power generation responsible for a fraction of 1% of American CO2 emissions, what will be the climate benefit from getting 1% of our power from solar? 

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Eben Thurston.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service