VERMONT BASELESS CLAIMS ABOUT FUTURE BIOFUELS CONSUMPTION

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) states biomass and bio liquids are projected to increase by 20% by 2025, on the way to doubling wood’s share of building heat by 2035. That wood share increase likely would not be obtained by increasing Vermont’s harvest, because Vermont is already harvesting in excess of US Forest service guidelines. That wood share increase likely would have to be imports from NH and NY and imported wood pellets. See page 8 of URL.

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

The CEP made baseless claims Vermont could increase consumption of biomass (mostly tree cutting for burning) and bio liquid (mostly for transportation, building heating and industry) by 10.805 TBtu, equivalent to 10.805 TBtu/128000 Btu/gal = 84.41 million gallon of biodiesel, B100, which, at 76 gal/acre, would require 1.111 million acre of soybean cropland in a state, such as Iowa.

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

Biomass for Heating and Electricity

 

VT biomass consumption was 8.8 TBtu, wood, wood pellets + 5.464 TBtu, McNeil/Ryegate = 14.264 TBtu in 2016.

See page 40 of URL

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Renewab...

 

Table 1/2016

million Btu/gr ton

million gr ton

TBtu

%

Heating

7.6

1.158

8.800

61.7

McNeil/Ryegate

7.6

0.719

5.464

38.3

Burning total

1.877

14.264

100.0

 

VT annual wood harvest (burning and other purposes) already is about 350,000 dry ton, or about 350,000/0.55 = 636,364 green ton, in excess of the US Forest Service recommended limit for removals, i.e., about 50% of the net annual growth rate of above ground biomass.

 

McNeil and Ryegate, old-technology wood-burning power plants (efficiency about 24%; modern plants about 30%) use about 347,342 (in-state) + 371,691 (out-of-state) = 719,033 green ton/y.

 

Because of harvesting limitations (tree cutting and crop area for other biomass growing), biomass would not be sufficiently available for building heating as projected by the CEP

 

Any increase in biomass would have to be from additional imports. But nearby states likely would increase their biomass consumption, which means less out-of-state supply would be available to Vermont

 

Vermont would be would required to use the existing biomass supply much more efficiently, such as by:

 

- Wood chip-fired, combined cycle heating/electricity plants, which would have a year-round efficiency of about 50%

- Immediately closing the 24%-efficient McNeil and Ryegate power plants.

The CEP made grossly inflated claims regarding future biomass availability and consumption

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-ne...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-wood-harvesting...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-comparison-of-wood-ch...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wood-for-fuel-logging-i...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dismal-economics-and-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-wood-burning-carbon-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-claim-burning-wood-...

 

Bio liquids for Transportation, Heating and Electricity 

 

Bio liquids usually are:

 

- Ethanol from corn (E100)

- Biodiesel from 1) soybean and other crops, 2) used cooking oil, 3) fat from rendering plants, etc. (B100)

 

VT bio liquid consumption was 0.355 TBtu (B100 in diesel fuel, table 3) + 2.652 TBtu (E100 in gasoline, table 4) = 3.007 TBtu in 2016.

 

The US diesel consumption is about 715 times greater than Vermont. If the US were to increase B100 consumption with soy oil in the same proportion as the CEP projection of 10.805 TBtu for Vermont by 2050, 715 x 1.111 million = 794 million acres of soybean crop would be required, about 2 times all US cropland

 

It is clear such quantities of B100 could not be grown in Vermont, which would have much less favorable cropland conditions, less sunshine, and much less yield per acre than Iowa.

 

In the US southwest, with plenty of sunshine to grow pond algae in seawater, about 12.1 million acre of ponds would be required, if the Holy Grail of 5000 gallon/acre/y would ever be realizedSee tables 1, 2 and 3

 

The CEP made grossly inflated claims regarding future bio liquid availability and consumption

Table 2

Vermont

US

US Southwest

Soybean

Soybean

Pond Algae

TBtu

TBtu

TBtu

Biofuel in 2016

17.271

Biofuel in 2050

28.087

Biofuel increase by 2050

10.805

7726

7726

B100 heat content, HHV, Btu/gal

128000

128000

128000

B100, 2050, million gallon

84.41

60356

60356

B100 yield, gal/acre

76

76

5000

Cropland, million acre

1.111

794.2

12.1

 

Vermont Cropland Limitations

 

The cropland area for 10.805 TBtu of B100, in an ideal state for growing soybeans, such as Iowa, would be 84.41 million gal/76 gal/acre = 1,110,711 acres.

 

Vermont’s total land area is 5.9 million acre; about 1.25 million acres (21%) are classified as farmland. Of those, about 536,052 acres are in cropland, and 446,020 acres are harvested. This leaves about 90,032 acre of unused/underutilized cropland that potentially could be available for biofuel production.

 

If 50,000 of the 90,032 acres were planted in soybeans, Vermont, with much less ideal conditions than Iowa, theoretically could expensively produce about 50,000 x 60 gal/acre = 3 million gallon of B100, or 3/84.41 x 10.805 = 0.384 TBtu, which is much less than the projected increase of 10.805 TBtu of B100, i.e., almost all of the projected B100 would be imported from out-of-state and/or foreign countries. See page 358 of URL

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

Cold Weather Limitations of B100 in New England

 

Biodiesel for transportation, such as B100, B6 and B20, must meet ASTM specifications and preferable also comply with the voluntary BQ9000 program. B5 has no requirements.

ASTM-complied B20 (80% petro diesel and 20% B100) tends to gel during cold weather, which is minimized with anti-gelling agents.

See URLs

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_specifications.html

https://regi.com/docs/default-source/marketing-collateral/reg-bq900...

 

Vermont B100 Consumption Limitation for Transportation

 

If Vermont’s entire diesel fleet (on-road and off-road) used ASTM-complied B20, the gallons of diesel and biofuel would be as shown in table 3.

The result was obtained by trial and error, until the gallon ratio became close to 20/80

Vermont’s B100 consumption for transportation would be about 13.145 million gal/y, or 1.683 TBtu/y.

That is much less than the CEP projected 10.805 TBtu by 2050

It appears 9.122 TBtu would have to be used as B20 or B100 (if that would be available) for building heating and industry, and/or electricity generation with 60% efficient combined cycle gas turbine plants.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 3/2016

million gal

Volume

Btu/gal

TBtu

Btu ratio

Gallon ratio

Existing conditions

%

Diesel blend, 2016

64.100

100.000

137567

8.818

B100

2.766

4.331

128000

0.355

Pure diesel

61.324

95.669

138000

8.463

.

Projected conditions

Diesel blend, B20

65.055

100

136000

8.847

B100

13.145

20

128000

1.683

0.1908

0.202

Pure diesel

51.910

80

138000

7.164

0.8124

0.798

 

Vermont E100 Consumption Limitation for Transportation

 

Vermont’s E100 consumption was 2.652 TBtu in 2016, but would be only 0.080 TBtu in 2050, because the CEP projects 3% fossil fuel of all transportation primary energy by 2050.

 

The E100 content of gasoline (about 10% at present) likely would not increase, due to a lack of cropland and due to switching from corn crop to soybean crop.

 

Table 4/2016

million gal

Volume

Btu/gal

TBtu

Existing conditions

%

Gasoline, E10

315.700

100.0

120900

38.168

E100

31.570

10.0

84000

2.652

Pure gasoline

284.130

90.0

125000

35.516

Projected conditions

Gasoline, E10

9.471

100.0

120900

1.145

E100

0.947

10.0

84000

0.080

Pure gasoline

8.524

90.0

125000

1.065

Exxon-Mobil B100 From Pond Algae Program

 

The US does not have the cropland to produce much more B100, unless

 

- At least 10 to 15 million of acres of corn cropland, and other cropland, would be switched to soybeans.

- The Exxon-Mobil B100-from-pond algae program would come to the rescue with significant quantities about 3 to 4 decades from now. Table 5 shows 1.0 million barrels per day in 2040, which would require at least 3 million acres of pond algae.

 

Table 5 shows Exxon-Mobil extrapolated to 1962 TBtu/y by 2040.

Most estimates for B100 from pond algae are about 5000 gal/acre/y (Holy Grail)

By comparison, B100 from soybean oil was about 76 gal/acre in 2017

US gasoline, E10, and US diesel in 2017 were more than 12 times greater than projected B100 production by 2040.

 

HHVs are from URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 5/2017

Production

Production

HHV

Area

Time

million gal/y

million barrel/d

TBtu/y

million acre

year

World crude oil

97.000

2018

US crude oil

11.000

2018

US gasoline, E10

142980

9.327

17286

29.900

2017

US diesel blend

43848

2.860

6032

2017

US biodiesel, B100

1596

0.104

204

20.000

2017

Exxon-Mobil B100; algae

153.3

0.010

19.6

0.031

2025

Exxon-Mobil B100 x 10; algae

1533

0.100

196.2

0.307

2030

Exxon-Mobil B100 x 100; algae

15330

1.000

1962.2

3.070

2040

HHV, Btu/gal

Diesel blend, 2017

137567

B100

128000

Pure diesel

138000

Gasoline, E10

120900

 

 

 

 

E100

84000

 

 

 

 

Pure gasoline

125000

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding pond algae, the CO2eq of upstream energy for:

 

- Make-up seawater to maintain salinity

- Operating and maintaining the facilities

- Large quantities of fertilizer to grow algae

- Processing the oil into B100, likely from fossil sources for at least the next few decades

- The upstream energy could be about 40% of the combustion energy.

- The upstream CO2eq could be about 40% of the combustion CO2eq.

 

These articles about replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with E100 and B100 show there are severe limitations to produce these biofuel liquids in large quantities in the US. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

 

Diesel Blend Primary, Upstream and Source Energy

 

Diesel blend is a blend of pure diesel and B100 sold at pumps.

US diesel blend and B100 consumption is reported by the EIA

The VT numbers are from the VTrans website.

B100 in the blend was 4.331%, by volume, in 2016, less than B5, which is exempt from any regulation.

The US uses about 715 times more diesel blend than VT

Vermont would be prudent to wait for the US to take the lead regarding large-scale B100 production, because Vermont's expensively subsidized, in-state B100 production would be irrelevant to Vermont, and would be uneconomical.

 

The upstream factors were obtained from these URLs

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

 

The HHVs were obtained from this URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 6

US, 2016

Energy

Primary

Volume

Primary

 Upstream

Upstream

 Source

billion gallon

 %

TBtu

Factor

TBtu

TBtu

Diesel blend

45.833

100.000

6305.104

0.2808

1771

8075.6

B100

1.985

4.331

254.080

0.4334

110

364.2

Pure diesel

43.848

95.669

6051.024

0.2739

1657

7708.4

.

VT, 2016

Energy

Primary

Volume

Primary

 Upstream

Upstream

 Source

million gallon

 %

TBtu

Factor

TBtu

TBtu

Diesel blend

64.100

100.000

8.818

0.2739

2.476

11.294

B100

2.776

4.331

0.355

0.4334

0.154

0.509

Pure diesel

61.324

95.669

8.463

0.2739

2.318

10.781

US/VT ratio

715

715

.

HHV, Btu/gal

Diesel blend

137567

B100

128000

Pure diesel

138000

 

CEP Ignored Upstream Energy and Upstream CO2eq

 

The CEP makes a big fuss about reducing primary energy, but ignores the upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of extraction, cropping, processing and transport.

 

Such ignoring makes B100 and E100 look much better compared to diesel and gasoline. This would not be apparent to laypeople, including just about all legislators, etc.

 

Such ignoring makes the outcomes of CEP energy and restructuring measures appear to be more attractive than in reality, because the upstream of B100 and E100 is about two times that of gasoline and diesel.

 

If this assumption were made on purpose, it would be a major deception.

If this assumption were merely an “errors and omissions”, it would be a major display of ignorance.

 

Upstream Energy and Upstream CO2eq

 

The upstream energy for extraction, cropping, processing and transport for several fuels are shown in table 8.

The table shows the total CO2eq if bio is counted and if bio is not counted.

The table shows, the upstream energy for E100 and B100 is about 2 times that of 100% gasoline and 100% diesel.

That means the worldwide upstream infrastructure for E100 and B100 would be at least 2 to 3 times greater than for gasoline and diesel, plus a cropland area of many billions of acres, to serve 9 to 10 billion people by 2050.

That clearly would be an additional environmental devastation well beyond existing devastation in 2018; hardly a smart way to “save the world”.

The CEP ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq, a major flaw.

 

1 million Btu of B100 replacing diesel would reduce CO2eq by 209.545 - 82.247 = 127.298 lb, or 60.75%

1 million Btu of E100 replacing gasoline would reduce CO2eq by 194.027 - 177.939 = 16.088 lb, or 8.29%

The upstream data are from these URLs

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

 

Table 8/Upstream energy

E100

Gasoline

E10

Diesel

B100

B20

90/10

Low S

Fuel, Btu

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

Upstream, Btu

817113

230000

288711

273919

433354

305806

Upstream/1000000

0.8171

0.2300

0.2887

0.2739

0.4334

0.3058

Combustion, lb CO2eq

150.882

155.229

154.794

163.467

162.776

163.328

Upstream, lb CO2eq

177.939

38.798

52.712

46.078

82.247

53.312

Total, lb CO2eq

328.821

194.027

207.506

209.545

245.023

216.640

Total CO2eq, bio not counted

177.939

194.027

192.027

209.541

82.247

183.974

. CO2eq reduction %
B100

127.294

60.75

E100

16.088

8.29

US and VT Gasoline, Diesel and Biofuel Consumption

The US and Vermont gasoline and diesel consumption for 2017 are shown in table 9

US B100 consumption data is collected on the federal level.

VT B100 consumption data is not collected on the state level.

The US gasoline, and diesel consumption data are shown for comparison

 

VT (and NH) has no meaningful, in-state B100 production and has minimal B100 consumption. That situation likely would not change without:

 

- A New England mandate to require B20 for all on-road and off-road diesel vehicles

- A subsidy to farmers to crop soybeans, etc., on unused land

- A subsidy to processors to transform the crops to ASTM-certified B100

- A subsidy to distributors to blend, store, transport and distribute B20 to fuel pumps

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/plann...

 

With these mandates and subsidies, the price of B20 likely would be on par with low sulfur diesel fuel.

See URL for HHV, Btu/gal

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

Table 9

US

US

VT

VT

US/VT

2017

2017

2016

2016

2017

b gallon

TBtu

b gallon

TBtu

TBtu ratio

Gasoline, E10

142.980

17170.468

0.3157

37.912

453

Diesel blend, 2016

45.833

6305.108

0.0641

8.818

715

Total

23475.577

46.730

E100 in E10

14.298

1201.032

0.0316

2.652

453

E100 in E15

0.500

42.000

B100

1.985

254.080

0.0028

0.355

Total

Bio liquid in 2016

1455.112

3.007

Biomass in 2016

14.264

Bio total 2016

17.271

Bio liquid added

10.805

Bio total 2050

28.076

HHV, Btu/gal

Pure gasoline

125000

Gasoline, E10

120090

Diesel

138000

Diesel blend, 2016

137567

E100

84000

B100

128000

B20

136000

Vermont CO2eq Emissions Increased From 1990 to 2015

 

Vermont's CO2eq has been increasing as shown in the table.

The CO2eq emissions are based on primary energy, not source energy.

The CO2eq likely would be at least 25 to 30% greater.

The Vermont Agency of Natural resources ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of all energy sources, a major flaw.

 

Vermont GHG Emissions

1990

2000

2005

2013

2014

2015

Total CO2eq, million mt

8.588

9.624

10.214

9.095

9.545

9.990

 

This is abundant proof Vermont's government has been implementing heavily subsidized, ineffective energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which, when taken together, have been ineffective CO2eq reduction programs.

 

With such a dismal track record, the state should stop wasting valuable taxpayer money, stop burdening taxpayers with higher electric rates, and taxes, fees and surcharges, and finally get out of the energy business, instead of agitating for unilateral carbon taxes at $500 million per year to make things far worse. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-far-from-meetin...

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan of 2016

The CEP has a goal to have 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables by 2050, such as wind, solar, hydro, biomass, E100, B100, etc.

 

- The CEP 2013 numbers were adjusted for 2016. See table 10.

- The CEP projects primary energy to decrease from about 140.994 TBtu in 2016 to about 75.881 TBtu in 2050, primarily due to having more wind, solar and hydro, which are have primary energy equal to generated energy, whereas fossil primary energy is on average about 3 times generated energy.

- The CEP ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of all energy sources, a major flaw and misrepresentation of reality

- The CEP projects biofuels (solid and liquid) to increase from about 17.271 TBtu in 2016 to about 28.076 TBtu in 2050, an increase 10.805 TBtu by 2050. See page 40 of URL

 

Table 10/Primary energy

2016

2016

2050

2050

%

TBtu

%

TBtu

Gasoline E10

34.562

37.912

3.000

2.276

Diesel blend

8.818

Other

2.000

B100, E100

2.133

3.007

Total, transportation

34.562

48.730

.

Fossil, buildings, industry

27.661

39.000

3.000

2.276

.

Biofuels, transportation, buildings, industry

10.117

14.264

37.000

28.076

Electricity, transportation, buildings, industry

27.661

39.000

57.000

43.252

Total

100.000

140.994

100.000

75.881

CEP Projected Electricity Consumption

The CEP projects electricity supply to user meters (generated in Vermont plus generated elsewhere) to increase from 5.3 billion kWh in 2015 to 9.1 billion kWh in 2050, an increase of 3.8 billion kWh by 2050. That includes EVs and heat pumps and energy efficiency and restructuring.

The generated electricity = 1.03, self use loss x 1.08, T&D loss x 9.1 TWh, delivered to meters = 10.12 TWh in 2050 

All electricity would be from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels.

No electricity would be from fossil fuels.

See page 186 of URL and notes.

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

NOTE: Electricity projections often overlook two major loss items.

- Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.

- Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

NOTE: Supply to user meters = gross generation in Vermont, less plant self-use; plus supply via Highgate tie line from Canada; plus supply from NE grid; less transmission and distribution

 

NOTE:

- Primary energy is the energy fed to power plants, buildings, vehicles, and industrial and commercial facilities. That energy usually has combustion CO2eq. If that combustion CO2eq is from fossil sources it is counted, if from renewable sources, such as biofuels, it is not counted.

 

- Source energy = Upstream energy for extraction, processing, transportation + primary energy. Upstream energy usually has combustion CO2eq. If that combustion CO2eq is from fossil sources it is counted, if from renewable sources, such as biofuels, it is not counted. At present very little of upstream energy is from renewable sources.

NOTE:

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements: There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators. A utility may claim it is 100% renewable. This means the utility has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physical Reality: Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves, EM, at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e. from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second, per College Physics 101.

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles per second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves, or did not know it themselves.

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

 

This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

NOTE: If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you can say I use my own electricity mix. If you are connected to the GMP grid, which is connected to the NE grid, and draw from any socket, then you draw the NE mix.

NOTE: In 2017, US primary energy was 97.7 quad = 97,700 TBtu, of which about 5 quad (5.1%) was biofuels, including bio-waste (such as wood waste for electricity and heat), and biofuel liquids (such as ethanol, E100 and biodiesel, B100).

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

CEP Projected Capital Costs, Carbon Taxes, and State Government Expansion

 

The CEP projects the capital cost, as estimated by Energy Action Network, to be at least $33 billion by 2050, or about one billion dollars per year, or about 6 to 7 times greater than current annual RE investments in Vermont. See page 65 of CEP and URLs.

 

Vermont is planning to impose a unilateral carbon tax to raise about $500 million per year to implement the CEP. 

Mostly Democrat politicians would create lots of government energy programs that would dole out money to their favored groups, which would be thankful, and vote Democrat forever.
The carbon tax has absolutely nothing to do with GW. Vermont could disappear, and whatever went on still would go on.
The carbon tax would set in motion the mother of all government boondoggles that would last for decades.
Vermont’s way of life would become unrecognizable.
The regimentation and coercion would be off the charts, all as determined by a nameless bureaucracy.

Vermonters have been subjected to about 15 years of expensive government energy programs, allegedly “to save the world, make a difference”, but in reality to get to as many federal and state subsidies for RE programs as possible.

Did CO2 emissions decrease? No, the opposite happened!
Increasing emissions of CO2, from 1990 to 2015 (latest numbers), proved the ineffectiveness of government energy programs.


With such a dismal track record, the state should stop wasting valuable taxpayer money, stop burdening taxpayers with higher electric rates, and taxes, fees and surcharges, and finally get out of the energy business, instead of agitating for unilateral carbon taxes at $500 million per year to make things far worse. See URLs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-90-percent-re...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-energy-transfor...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/90-or-100-renewable-ene...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-and-vermont-s-90-re...

Decreasing Primary Energy of Electricity Generation

Regarding electricity generation, the primary energy decrease would be due to replacing fossil fuels, which have primary energy about 3 times greater than the generated electricity, with hydro, wind, solar, and digester and landfill methane, which have primary energy equal to the generated electricity.

 

The primary energy reduction, i.e., minimal fossil fuels, would require:

 

- Additional in-state and out-of-state wind and solar electricity generation

- Additional out-of-state electricity from large hydro, i.e., a major increase in supply from Hydro-Quebec via the Highgate HVDC tie line on a 24/7/365 basis.

- A new 1000 MW HVDC tie line for additional out-of-state electricity from H-Q on a 24/7/365 basis to get ready for future heat pumps and plug-in vehicles.

- GMP pays about 5.549 c/kWh for H-Q electricity under a 20-year power purchase agreement with H-Q. See page 239 through 243 of CEP and URL

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

NOTE:

- Additional in-state generation from small hydro is very limited.

- Additional in-state generation from existing hydro plants through upgrades is possible, but of minor consequence, and would produce expensive electricity.

- Additional in-state generation from digester and landfill methane is very limited.

- Additional in-state generation from biomass (woody and other) is very limited.

 

Decreasing Primary Energy of Other Sectors

The much harder part is to reduce the primary energy of other sectors to supply useful energy to users. That would require:

 

- Major efficiency increases for transportation due to plug-in hybrids (using B100) and plug-in EVs.

- Deep retrofits of at least 80% of all residential and other buildings and replacing/supplementing existing heating/cooling systems with air source and ground source heat pump systems.

- Moving large numbers of households from their energy-hog houses to clusters of new, highly sealed, highly insulated apartment buildings close to town centers. The apartments in such buildings would have open floorpans and would:

1) Have R-20 basements, R-40 walls, R-60 roofs, R-7 triple pane windows, R-10 doors, and leakage rates of less than 1.0 air change per hour, ACH, per blower door test 

BTW, such “energy-sipping” houses and apartment buildings would be suitable for heating and cooling with heat pumps.

2) Have Solar panels, heat pumps, and air-to-air heat exchangers

3) Have large, south-facing roofs to generate enough electricity to also charge EVs.

4) New housing and other buildings should be required to be net-energy-surplus buildings, with ground source heat pump systems (which are far superior to air source heat pump systems). Such buildings would produce enough electricity to also charge EVs.

Implications of Lack of Availability of Biofuel liquids

 

The lack of biofuel liquids would mean they would not be sufficiently available for transportation and building heating until about two decades later than projected by the CEP.

 

This would require:

 

1) A much greater emphasis on increasing the mileage of existing vehicle fleets

2) A much slower transition from petroleum-based fuels to biofuel liquids

3) A more rapid transition from standard IC vehicles to plug-in hybrids and plug-in EVs. The transition to EVs likely would not take place until EVs would have:

 

- Much lower prices for widespread affordability

- Much bigger batteries for longer range  

- 4WD; about 50% of Vermont passenger vehicles are SUVs, minivans and ¼-ton pick-ups, most of which have 4WD.

Here is an article, with graph, on battery cell prices ($/kWh) and battery pack prices for EVs (the pricing for other purposes likely would be higher), which would indicate minivans, SUVs, and 1/4-ton pick-ups, which would have large batteries, would not be economical and available until about 4 to 5 years from now.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-th...

That transition would increase the load on the NE and VT grid

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/flawed-epa-method-of-ca...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-nuclear-plant...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifecycle-co2eq-of-inte...

Increased Energy Efficiency for Building:It would require much greater emphasis on deep retrofitting at least 80% of Vermont’s buildings (residential and other) to finally make them suitable for heating/cooling with heat pumps, so that the envisioned energy and cost savings would actually be realized, which currently is only the case for highly insulated and highly sealed buildings. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-...

  

APPENDIX 1

The source factors of manmade fuels, such as E100 and B100, are much higher than of fossil fuels.

It took a vast, worldwide, upstream infrastructure to extract, process and transport 97 million barrels of crude oil per day to serve 7.5 billion people in 2017.

It would take several billion acres of land for cropping feedstocks, and for processing and transporting them, which would require an infrastructure and energy at least two to three times as large to serve 9.5 billion people in 2050. See URLs.

 

E10 HHV = 0.9 x 125000 + 0.1 x 84000 = 120090

B20 HHV = 0.8 x 138000 + 0.2 x 128000 = 136000

 

Upstream Energy and CO2eq Factors: The California EPA/Air Resources Board performed detailed studies of energy and CO2eq pathways of various fuels, including upstream energy and CO2eq. The upstream energy factors in the table are from the URLs.

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

The HHV are from this URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 11

E100

Gasoline

E10 (90/10)

Petro-diesel

B100

B20 (80/20)

NG

LNG

Btu/gal

Btu/gal

Btu/gal

Btu/gal

Btu/gal

Btu/gal

Btu/lb

Btu/lb

HHV

84000

125000

120900

138000

128000

136000

22453

23726

LHV

75851

116706

112621

128033

119587

126344

20160

21240

HHV/LHV ratio

1.107

1.071

1.074

1.078

1.070

1.076

1.114

1.117

Source energy factor

0.8171

0.3086

0.3595

0.2739

0.4334

0.3058

1.1700

1.4286

Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas

 

The CO2eq and CO2eq factors of NG and LNG are shown in table 4. The upstream energy factors were assumed to be the same as the CO2eq factors, because I was unable to find the upstream energy for extraction, processing and transport of NG and LNG. See URLs.

 

Comparative Life Cycle Carbon Emissions of LNG versus Coal and Gas for Electricity Generation

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/LNGLife...

 

The high CO2eq factor for LNG is due to the additional processing of natural gas, liquefying, storing, loading into tankers, tanker transport and losses during transport, unloading from tanker and storing, re-gasifying and distribution.

 

Table 8

Combustion

Upstream

Combustion + Upstream

CO2eq factor

lb/million Btu

lb/million Btu

lb/million Btu

NG CO2eq

120.000

20.4

140.400

0.1700

LNG CO2eq

120.000

51.4

171.400

0.4283

APPENDIX 2

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

- Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 3

High Levels of Wind and Solar

 

High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having:

 

- Much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus

- Gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very low outputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

 

If high levels of wind and solar were built out after a few decades, and the gas turbine, nuclear, coal and oil plants were closed down (according to RE proponent wishes), and with existing connections to nearby grids, and with existing reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants, and with existing other sources, the NE grid would require 6 - 8 TWh of storage to cover 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random, and to cover seasonal variations (storing wind when it is more plentiful in fall, winter and spring, and when solar is more plentiful in summer, so more of their electricity would be available in summer when wind usually is at very low levels). See URLs.

 

That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times (about 10 days of demand coverage) to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels and minimal wind.

- One TWh of storage costs about $400 billion, at $400/kWh, or $100 billion at a Holy Grail $100/kWh.

- Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.

- Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...;

APPENDIX 4

Hydro-Quebec Electricity Generation and Purchases: Google this URL for the 2017 facts. The H-Q electricity supply is an order of magnitude cleaner than the Vermont supply.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

 

2017

GWh

Hydropower generated 

177091

Purchased

44006

- Hydro

31610

- Wind

9634

- Biomass and waste reclamation 

2021

- Other

741

Total RE generated and purchased

221097

 

NOTE: Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station, plus three thermal generating stations (Tracy, La Citière and Cadillac) were shut down.

 

Hydro-Quebec Export Electricity: H-Q net exports were 34.4 TWh/y in 2017; provided 27% of H-Q net income, or $780 million, i.e., very profitable.

H-Q export revenue was $1,651 million in 2017, or 1641/34.4 = 4.8 c/kWh.

See page 24 of Annual Report URL.

This is for a mix of old and new contracts.

Revenue = 1641

Net profit = 780

Cost = 1641 - 780 = 861

Average cost of H-Q generation = 861/34.4 = 2.5 c/kWh

 

GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract. GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

H-Q is eager to sell more of its surplus electricity to New England and New York.

That is at least 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality.  

GMP sells to me at 19 c/kWh, per rate schedule. Consumers pricing for electricity is highly political. That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc. The rate setting is influenced by protecting “RE policy objectives”, which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.

http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-releases/1338/annual-report-2917/

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/annual-report...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increased-canadian-hydr...

APPENDIX 5

 

Vermont wood harvest

Cord, green

Ton, green

YTY, %

Fuel use

YTY, %

Other uses

2013

807878

2019695

1146594

873101

2014

967763

2419408

19.8

1216178

6.1

1203230

2015

971466

2428665

0.4

1197309

-1.6

1231356

2016

982952

2457380

1.2

1315738

9.9

1141642

Views: 422

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 Penny Gray on November 10, 2018 at 10:13am

Perhaps Vermont could import more trees from China, or better yet, since China isn't taking our garbage anymore, they could burn that for biomass while digging giant algae ponds at the base of the giant wind turbines and so forth.  Easy beans.  Oh and by the way Willem Post, would you please run for president?

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"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."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

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

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(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 https://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?" https://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.” https://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!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service