IFO INSTITUTE STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON CLIMATE-SAVING CREDENTIALS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

A Tesla Model 3 has a worse life-cycle carbon footprint than a similar-sized Mercedes diesel car, the renowned German think tank, IFO, has found. It warns that electric vehicles are "no panacea" against climate change.

https://www.dw.com/en/ifo-study-casts-doubt-on-electric-vehicles-cl...

When the IFO released its findings shortly before Easter, its verdict amounted to no less than the slaughtering of a sacred cow of German climate policy: electrom....

 

The claims made by former IFO president Hans-Werner Sinn, physics professor Christoph Buchal and IFO energy expert Hans-Dieter Long could deal a big blow to Germany's efforts to reduce traffic-related CO2 by 40% over the next decade.

 

Germany is heading down a blind alley, the authors boldly state, because electric vehicles will "barely help to cut emissions" as battery-powered cars emit between 10% and "up to a quarter" more CO2 than a conventional diesel car.

 

The research trio compared the CO2 footprint of a Tesla Model 3 with those of a Mercedes 220d diesel car and a Mercedes C Class model converted from gasoline to liquefied natural gas (LNG).

 

Their focus was on the life cycle emissions — from the mining of lithium and other materials, to manufacturing parts, batteries and cars, to the cars' final kilometer. The life cycle in terms of distance driven was arbitrarily set at 150,000 kilometers (93,205 miles) for better judgment.

 

Go to the URL at the top of the article to watch the video in the original article.

Is the EU Greenwashing?

 

The European Commission currently counts electric cars as "zero-emission vehicles", i.e., driving only, as it seeks to push car fleet emissions in Europe below 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer (152.8 grams/mile) by 2021. In the decade to follow, a cut of another 35% has been decreed, down to 59 g/km (94.9 grams/mile).

 

The IFO study calls this into question, saying that EVs are far from emissions-free, nor are these targets achievable without cooking the data.

 

The authors admit that accuracy of the carbon data, especially on the upstream parts of the manufacturing process, is still weak. But all available information on CO2 emitted during manufacturing, battery and fuel production, as well as electricity generation, already suggests the Tesla Model 3 electric car has the heaviest lifetime carbon footprint of the three, at least within the context of Germany's energy mix.

 

 

IFO used the EU's NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) standard setting emissions fromdriving only,as shown in table1. The EU and EV proponents would immediately claim “EVs are cleaner than dirty diesel and dirty gasoline”, however, that picture changes, on a lifecycle bases.

NEDC was replaced in 2018 by the WLTP standard, measuring emissions more accurately and meaning they are higher for all models

 

Table 1

Driving CO2

Driving + Battery + Car + Other upstream

 

CO2

CO2

 

g/km

g/km

Tesla Model 3, 133.5 g/mile

83  

156 - 181

Mercedes 220d diesel

 117  

141

Mercedes LNG

 76  

approx. 100

 

IT IS THE BATTERY!!

 

IFO calculated making an electric vehicle and a conventional combustion engine car creates more or less the same amount of CO2 — 8.6 metric ton per car. About 4.9 ton is emitted to produce the body of a car and 1.9 ton is emitted during the assembly process, for a total of 6.8 ton.

 

Moreover, IFO found that producing a diesel motor causes slightly higher emissions (0.8 ton) than making the electric motors (0.3 ton) driving the Tesla Model 3. But while the Tesla's "additional components" account for 1.5 tons of CO2 per car, those of the Mercedes 220d account for just 1.0 ton, the study claims.

 

Regarding so-called well-to-tank emissions of fossil fuels, IFO used an analysis done by the European Commission  itself.

Most significant for the comparison is the footprint of EV battery production and recycling. There, IFO used the figures provided by a 2017 Swedish study into the energy required to produce lithium-io...

THE GERMAN ENERGY MIX/MESS 

 

IFO states the carbon count tips clearly in favor of combustion engines because of Germany's fossil-fuel-heavy electricity production. Norway's electricity production is about 98% from hydro power. This may give the Tesla Model 3 a carbon lead over its Mercedes rivals. However, that would not be the case given Germany's energy mix at present and in the near future.

 

Germany's dirty energy situation isn't going to change over the next five years, due to a government decision to completely phase out nuclear energy by 2022, about 76 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity need to be replaced annually.

 

Because this shortfall likely will be covered by electricity from fossil fuels, mainly imported natural gas, Germany's energy mix is likely to become even dirtier, even if wind/solar build-outs proceed as planned.

 

NOTE: If hard coal were used, IFO calculated, the carbon footprint of a Tesla Model 3 would spike to 175 to 200 g/km, roughly 25% more than the emissions of the Mercedes diesel and more than double that of the LNG car.

 

Go to the URL at the top of the article to watch the video in the original article.

 

Germany wants to cover the nuclear shortfall with renewable power a..., and aims to increase energy from green sources to about 85% by 2050. But the researchers argue that under the current pace of the renewables buildup of 15 TWh annually, making up for the nuclear phase-out alone will take at least until 2025.

 

They also claim a carbon-neutral German energy production might turn out to be both technically unfeasible and economically unviable. 

 

CRITICISM

 

1) The IFO study incurred a strong backlash from e-mobility proponents, who strongly questioned the findings. The Fraunhofer ISI think tank, a renowned research group advocating e-mobility, criticized the use of the Tesla Model 3 as a reference model, arguing the car's battery was too powerful to be used as an example for average car CO2 measurements. 

 

That criticism may not be valid, as more and more EVs, especially 4WD crossovers and 4WD SUVs have at least 60 kWh batteries, the same as the Tesla Model 3.

 

2) Fraunhofer ISI also said IFO had used the outdated NEDC standard for measuring the Mercedes fuel consumption, which in real driving situations, measured by the new WLTP standard, was much higher.

 

That criticism may not be valid, as it could be raised regarding the 15 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers (15 kWh/93 miles) Tesla touts for its Model 3. Road testing by the German newspaper FAZ suggests this is actually around 24 kWh/100km, which is confirmed by the Edmunds yearlong road test. See appendix.

 

3) Another criticism concerned the carbon data from battery production, which according to EV proponents was overestimated by IFO.

 

4) EV proponents say IFO had not given due regard to the renewables buildup planned in Germany, which would make electric car charging greener in the decade ahead. 

However, phasing out near-CO2-free nuclear and replacing it with low-CO2 NG would make the German grid dirtier. It would be doubtful the increased dirtiness would be offset by increased wind and solar, which also have CO2 associated with them on a lifetime basis, and which increasingly require additional battery capacity for grid stability; batteries have high CO2 on a lifetime basis. Should the battery's CO2 be charged to wind and solar?

5) German carmaker Volkswagen, which wants to sell 10 million EVs in the coming years, also stepped into the fray. It admitted with current German electricity generation, the Golf EV would emit 142 g/km, whereas a diesel-driven car of the same type would emit 140 g/km over a life cycle of 200,000 kilometers.

 

But VW also noted using the European energy mix for calculations, which includes large amounts of nuclear from France and hydro from Norway, the Golf EV carbon footprint would be down to 119 g/km. 

That may not be low enough to satisfy EU driving only CO2 requirements mandated by 2030.

NOTE: Volkswagen is using a ruse. It used 200,000 km, which achieves a lesser g CO2/km, then if 150,000 km were used. The IFO study used 150,000 km to calculate its g CO2/km. Also, it is doubtful, batteries would last for 200,000 km.

 

IFO RESPONSE

 

In view of the controversy, IFO responded its study should not be seen as a complete piece of scientific research into electro-mobility's carbon footprint. Yet, IFO is sticking to its judgment that the electric car is not a panacea in the fight against climate change.

APPENDIX 1

EV Lifetime CO2 due to Energy of Operations and Energy Embodied in Infrastructures

 

Some people make the claim EVs have zero CO2 emissions. Sometimes they add “from the tailpipe”, even though an EV does not have a tailpipe. Oh, well. If we look at CO2 emissions on a lifetime basis, an entirely different picture emerges. 

EV Lifetime CO2 due to Energy of Operations

Regarding CO2 emissions from operations, there are four phases:

a) Electricity generation phase. CO2 due to:

 

- Materials extraction, processing, storage, transport of various fuels fed into power plants,

- Combustion of various fuels

b) Pre-driving phase. CO2 due to:

 

- Vehicle and battery production, including materials extraction, processing, storage, transport to battery pack and vehicle manufacturing/assembly plants,

- Transport of finished vehicles to user.


c) Driving phase. CO2 due to:

 

In case of a plug-in hybrid vehicle, 1) upstream (fossil fuel extraction, processing, transport) and combustion, 2) grid electricity, from mine/well/fracking source to user meter.

 

In case of an electric vehicle, CO2 due to grid electricity, from mine/well/fracking source to user meter.

d) Disposal phase. CO2 due to:

 

- Vehicle and battery end-of-life disposal processing/landfill.


http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ifo-institute-study-cas...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

NOTE:

- The operational upstream CO2 of NG is about 17% of NG combustion CO2.

https://ceic.tepper.cmu.edu/-/media/files/tepper/centers/ceic/publi...

 

- The operational upstream CO2 of LNG is about 43% of NG combustion CO2.

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

 

The EU may use different values.

- The upstream CO2 of E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) is about 23.76% of combustion CO2; pure gasoline about 25%, per US EPA

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

EV Lifetime CO2 due to Energy Embodied in Infrastructures

 

Here are just two of the many infrastructures required to create and support EVs.

 

1) Lithium Infrastructure: Go to the URL at the top of the article to watch the video in the original articleregarding Chile in South America, which has one of the largest lithium deposits in the world. The video shows the enormous environmental damage inflicted on Chile by at least one thousand square kilometers of evaporation ponds, due to the present level of lithium-ion battery use for various purposes, including EV vehicles. Expanding worldwide EV production with Li-ion batteries would expand that pond area by at least 100 times.

 

2) LNG Infrastructure: Regarding using LNG for LDVs (one of the options in the above article) that would require a vast new infrastructure of NG pipelines to specialized sending harbors with NG process plants, NG to LNG liquefaction plants, LNG storage, specialized LNG tankers (some of them with ice-braking hulls), specialized receiving harbors, LNG storage, LNG trucking to distribute LNG to users, and/or LNG to NG regasifying plants and NG pipelines from those plants to connect to existing NG pipelines.

 

Here are some data regarding just one part of the costly infrastructure chain for LNG: 

 

- Yamal LNG; operated by Yamal LNG company; owned by Russian independent gas producer Novatek (50.1%), Total, a French company (20%), CNPC (20%) and Silk Road Fund (9.9%); capital cost $27 billion; capacity 16.5 million mt LNG, 3 trains. 

 

- Yamal LNG 2: operated by Yamal LNG company; owned by Novatek (60%), Total (20%); Others (20%); capital cost $25.5 billion; capacity 19.8 million mt LNG, 3 trains.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/56f19604-fd6d-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/russia-dreams-bi...

https://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/yamal-lng-projec...

 

Summary Table of CO2

 

The values in the table 1 are based on:

 

- A driving distance of 150,000 km (or 150,000/1.60934 = 93,206 miles) during the 15 years of a vehicle’s life,

- Using E10 (10% ethanol/90% gasoline blend),

- Electric grid CO2 intensity of 500 g CO2/kWh, (or 500/454 = 1.101 lb CO2/kWh), on a “fed to grid” basis. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-energy-ef...

 

Comments on Table 1

 

-The embodied CO2 of several vehicles (battery and vehicle only), as a percent of the lifecycle emissions, in metric ton, are shown in below table.

- The embodied CO2 of infrastructures is not included

- CO2 estimates of the Toyota Prius, Toyota plug-in Prius and Tesla Model S were inserted for comparison purposes.

See URL and click on press release.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/06/full-life-cycle-assesment-elect...

 

Table 1/Vehicle

Embodied

Driving, etc.

Lifecycle

 

CO2, Mt

CO2, Mt

CO2, Mt

Average E10 vehicle

 5.6 (23%)

18.4

24.0

Average hybrid

6.5 (31%)

14.5

21.0

Hybrid, Prius

6.5 (31%)

12.0

18.5

Average plug-in hybrid

6.7 (35%)

12.3

19.0

Plug-in hybrid, Prius

6.7 (35%)

10.0

16.7

EV, medium-size battery

 8.8 (46%)

10.2

19.0

EV, Tesla Model S, 100 kWh

11.5 (60%)

10.4

21.9

APPENDIX 2

ONE-YEAR EXPERIENCE WITH A TESLA MODEL S

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S measured the house meter kWh, vehicle meter kWh, and miles for one year. There was significant kWh/mile variation throughout the year.

 

- The Model S has regenerative braking as a standard feature.

- The owner did not take into account the source-to-house meter electrical losses.

- New EVs would have less kWh/mile than older EVs, due to battery system aging.

- Data as measured by owner in New York State covered only the driving energy. The embedded energy and its CO2 were ignored.

 

See URLs, especially the second, which has a wealth of data.

 

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s...

http://www.uniteconomics.com/files/Tesla_Motors_Is_the_Model_S_Gree...

 

About 1275 kWh of supercharger power was used for 4,000 miles of road trips, or 0.319 kWh/mile, per vehicle meter.

About 3799 kWh was used for 11243 miles of general driving, or 0.339 kWh/mile, per vehicle meter

Total 5074 kWh for 15243 miles, or 0.333 kWh/mile, per vehicle meter. See table 4

 

His real-world annual average was 0.434 kWh/mile, wall-meter and supercharger meter basis, and 0.333 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis; owners may use more or less than 0.434 kWh/mile in other US regions.

 

In colder, hilly upstate New York (and New England) greater losses would be expected than in warmer, flat southern California.

 

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2019 Tesla Model S, AWD, 100 kWh battery, is 35 kWh/100 miles, wall meter basis, or 0.350 x 0.85, charging efficiency = 0.298 kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis. See URL

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&ye...

 

NOTE: The EPA tests in a laboratory based on wall meter, but does not account for real-world conditions, such as vampire loss, hot and cold weather operation, road conditions, snow, hilly terrain, more than one person and/or cargo in a vehicle. As a result the real-world consumption is about 33.3 kWh/100 miles, vehicle meter basis. See table 4.

 

NOTE: It is important to understand it takes 0.434 kWh/mile of AC electricity to provide 0.333 kWh/mile as DC electricity in the battery. See table 4, which shows the electricity from the wall meter, charging loss, vampire loss, the electricity available for driving, and the charging/vampire loss factor.

 

NOTE: The charging and discharging of an EV battery is similar to having slowly increasing gas filling losses, due to a more and more leaky hose, into a slowly shrinking, slightly leaky, fuel tank*, plus having slowly decreasing miles per gallon, as your gasoline vehicle ages.

 

* In case of EVs, the growing losses of electricity are due to:

 

1) Slowly increasing charging/discharging losses (due to battery internal resistance increasing with age), into a battery, which has a capacity slowly decreasing with age; and

2) Slowly increasing vampire losses.

 

Table 3/MODEL S, 2019, 100 kWh

%

kWh

Miles

 kWh/mile

Basis

EPA combined

0.350

WM

EPA combined

0.350 x 0.85

0.298

VM

.

Three long road trips

1275

4000

0.319

VM

General driving

3799

11243

0.339

VM

Real-world driving

5074

15243

0.333

VM

.

%

kWh/y

Real-world driving

6614/15243

6614

0.434

WM

Charging loss

6614 x 0.15

15.00

992

In battery, as DC

6614 - 992

5622

VM

Vampire loss, as DC

1.5 kWh/d x 365 d

9.74

548

VM

Available for driving, as DC

5611 - 548

5074

VM

Miles driven

15243

Real-world driving

5074/15243

0.333

VM

Charging/vampire loss factor

0.434/0.333

1.303

.

Interim readings

kWh/mile

EPA

Apr-Oct

0.301

0.298

VM

July

0.290

0.298

VM

Nov-Feb

0.371

0.298

VM

Jan

0.400

0.298

VM

.

Electricity cost, c/kWh

19

Travel cost, c/mile

19 x 6614/15243

8.24

 

APPENDIX 3

LONG-TERM ROAD TEST OF TESLA MODEL 3 

Edmunds, in California, has been performing a long-term road test of a Tesla Model 3 since January 2018. Here are the latest results from the Edmunds website.

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017...

 

- Edmond one-year average mpg, with various drivers, various road trips, was about 30.80 kWh/100 miles, based on wall meter

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data. See table 4 and URL

- EV drivers know little of the charging/vampire loss; they rely on the lower numbers of the EV meter.

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

 

In colder, hilly upstate New York (and New England) greater losses would be expected than in warmer, flat southern California.

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2018 Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, is 29 kWh/100 miles, wall meter basis, or 0.29 x 0.85 = 24.65 kWh/100 miles, vehicle meter basis. See table 4 and 5 and URL

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2018_Tesla_Model_3.shtml

 

NOTE: The EPA tests in a laboratory based on wall meter, but does not account for real-world driving conditions, such as vampire loss, hot and cold weather operation, road conditions, snow, hilly terrain, more than one person and/or cargo in a vehicle. As a result the real-world consumption during the Edmund test was about 30.80 kWh/100 miles. See table 4.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&ye...

 

Table 2 shows the data recorded by Edmunds during the long-term road test of the Tesla Model 3

 

Table 4/Tesla Model 3, 60 KWh

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Odometer

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Travel/month, miles

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh/100 m

Real-world average

31.70

31.40

31.80

31.70

31.00

31.10

30.80

EPA combined

29.00

 

 

 

29.00

29.00

29.00

29.00

29.00

29.00

Vehicle meter, kWh/100 m

Real-world average

25.17

24.83

25.03

25.09

24.76

24.70

24.49

EPA combined

24.65

 

 

 

24.65

24.65

24.65

24.65

24.65

24.65

 

Table 5 shows the electricity from the wall meter, charging loss, vampire loss, the electricity available for driving, and the charging/vampire loss factor.

 

Table 5/MODEL 3, 2019, 100 kWh

%

kWh

 kWh/mile

Basis

EPA combined

0.2900

WM

EPA combined

0.290 x 0.85

0.2465

VM

.

%

kWh/y

Real-world driving

3442/11174

3442

0.3080

WM

Charging loss,

3442 x 0.15

15.00

516

WM

In battery, as DC,

3442 - 516

2925

VM

Vampire loss, as DC

100 x 188/2925

6.43

188

VM

Available for driving, as DC

2925 - 188

2737

VM

Miles driven

11174

Real-world driving

2737/11174

0.2449

VM

Charging/vampire loss factor

0.3080/0.245

1.2573

.

Electricity cost, c/kWh

19

Travel cost, c/mile

19 x 3442/11174

5.85

 

APPENDIX 4

NEW ENGLAND GRID CO2 EMISSIONS 

The 322 g CO2/kWh, based on the combustion of primary energy (energy fed to power plants), is from the ISO-NE 2016 grid emissions report. ISO-NE ignores the CO2 of upstream energy for extraction, processing, storage and transport of fuels to power plants.

The 322 g increases to 346 g, at the wall meter, due to T&D losses.

The 346 g applies to all electricity drawn from the NE grid by users.

 

The upstream energy mostly consists of electricity, diesel fuel, gas, etc.

The upstream CO2 is 17% for NG and 43% for LNG of the combustion CO2 of NG.

The primary energy is the energy in the fuel fed to the gas turbines that are assumed to operate at 50% efficiency.

 

Electricity Moving at Near the Speed of Light on the Grid

 

- As Vermont is connected to the NE-grid, any electricity drawn from the grid is the grid mix, which likely would have a fossil fuel component, i.e., not some hypothetical, artificial “Vermont mix” or “New Hampshire mix” based on commercial power supply contracts, such as Green Mountain Power of Vermont contracting to buy low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from the Seabrook Nuclear Plant.

 

- According to Physics 101 in engineering colleges, electricity moves on the grid as electromagnetic waves at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 second, or Vermont's length, 160 miles, in 0.0009 seconds; the electrons vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second and migrate at about 1 inch/second. In fact, if electricity did not move that fast, no electric grid would work.

 

- For lay people and RE proponents to proclaim, without scientific proof, there is a “Vermont mix”, or a “New Hampshire mix”, is beyond rational.

 

From Source Energy to “In Battery”

 

Table 6 shows about 1.182 kWh/mile (energy in fuel to gas turbines) is required to have an average of 0.350 kWh/mile in the batteries of a mix of light duty vehicles, LDVs; cars, crossovers, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups.

Comments on Table 6

Each 0.350 kWh of DC electricity in the battery came from 0.490 kWh of electricity fed to the grid that emitted 0.490 x 322 g/kWh = 158 g of combustion CO2, excluding upstream, or 1.17 x 158 = 185 g of combustion CO2, including upstream of NG.

 

The 185 g of CO2 excludes the embodied CO2 of:

 

1) Battery and vehicle creation, as above described.

2) A part of the infrastructure for battery and vehicle creation, including in Chile and $5 billion battery plants, and ultimately at least 100 million private and public charging stations, just in the US.

3) A part of the infrastructure of the electrical system.

4) A part of the infrastructure of the fuel supply systems to the electrical system.

5) A part of the infrastructure of the fuel supply systems to hybrid vehicles.

6) A part of the infrastructure of vehicle and battery processing/disposal.

If an EV owner uses the wall meter reading for electricity consumption, 0.490/0.456 x 322 = 346 g/kWh should be used for calculating only the driving CO2.

If an EV owner uses the vehicle meter reading for electricity consumption, 0.456/0.350 x 346 = 451 g/kWh should be used for calculating only the driving CO2.

 

Table 6

kWh/mile

NE grid CO2

gram/kWh

Source energy

1.182

Upstream for NG extraction, processing, transport, etc., 17%

0.158

Primary energy = LNG or NG energy as heat to gas turbine plants

1.010

Conversion loss, 50%

0.505

Gross electricity generation

0.505

Plant self-use loss, 3.0%

0.015

Net electricity generation = Fed to grid

0.490

322

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.034

Fed to meters, as AC

0.456

346

Charging/vampire loss = 1.303, same as Tesla Model S in NY)

0.106

In batteries for a mix of LDVs, as DC

0.350

451

 

APPENDIX 5

REUSING OLD ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERIES FOR GRID-SCALE STORAGE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reusing-old-electric-ve...

APPENDIX 6

THE UPSTREAM FACTORS OF VARIOUS FUELS

 

Table 7/CO2eq of fuels

Ethanol

Gasoline*

E10 (90/10)

Diesel

Biodiesel

Upstream energy

Corn

Low S

Fr. Soy oil

Fuel, Btu, HHV

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

Upstream, Btu, HHV

817113

230000

288711

273919

433354

Upstream/1000000

0.8171

0.2300

0.2887

0.2739

0.4334

.

HHV, Btu/gal

84530

124340

120359

138490

127960

LHV, Btu/gal

76330

116090

112114

128488

119550

* US EPA uses 0.25

 

 

Views: 221

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

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