REPLACING ALL IC LDVs WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN VERMONT

IRE proponents want to “electrify” the Vermont transportation sector. That means:

 

- Much less consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel and much more generation of electricity.

- This article deals only with gasoline replacement.

- Internal combustion vehicles using gasoline, hereafter called E10 (a blend of 90% gasoline/10% ethanol from corn), would be replaced with plug-in electric vehicles.

Vermont had 2985 registered plug-in hybrids, and plug-in EVs in January 2019.

Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan aspirational goal is to have 50,000 plug-in vehicles by the end of 2025

Vermont’s ENERGY ACTION NETWORK aspirational goal is to have 90,000 plug-in vehicles by the end of 2025

Vermonters need crossovers, minivans, SUVs and 1/4 ton pick ups, all with four-wheel drive, as plug-in electric vehicles, but they are not yet being marketed.

It likely would take a few more years for them to arrive dealerships in large quantities, plus they would have to be at reasonable/affordable cost.

They should have large capacity batteries to overcome Vermont’s difficult road, terrain and winter weather conditions.

Thus the goals set by CEP and EAN were extremely unrealistic, likely pulled out of a hat.

Those goals should be significantly revised downward to reflect market realities.

https://vtdigger.org/2019/03/01/state-needs-1575-boost-evs-six-year...

For this article, it is assumed:

 

- Only EVs will be used to replace IC vehicles that currently are using gasoline. 

- Hybrids would not be allowed, unless they would use bio-fuels, of which the combustion CO2 would not be counted. If the upstream energy used to produce the biofuels (cropping, processing, transport, etc.) were entirely from renewable sources, its CO2 also would not be counted. 

 

Biofuels Require Large Cropland Areas 

It would be a challenge to produce large quantities of biofuels.

For example, E10 is a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.

It takes about 30 million acres of corn cropping to produce that 10% of the US E10 supply.

It would take about 424 million acres of corn cropping to have all E10 vehicles use 100% ethanol, because the ethanol Btu/gallon is about 2/3 of the gasoline Btu/gallon.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

The US planted crops on about 334 million acres in 2017. It would be a miracle, if the US could increase its crop area by 50 million acres. See URL

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-29-2018.pdf

See Summary Table 3 of URL.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses.aspx

 

RE proponents say much more efficient ways of producing biofuels will be found.

However, it likely would take decades for them to be in mass production. See URLs.

 

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

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

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

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

ADDITIONAL LOAD ON VERMONT GRID DUE TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Vermont light duty vehicles, LDVs, include cars, crossovers, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups.

LDV travel, etc., is shown in table 1A. It is important to understand, due to charging and vampire losses, it takes:

0.434 kWh/mile of AC electricity to provide 0.333 kWh/mile as DC electricity in the battery for the Tesla Model S, i.e., 0.434/0.333 = 1.303

It takes 0.308/0.245 = 1.2573 for the Tesla Model 3. See Appendix 2 and tables 1A and 5 and 5A

 

Table 1A/Vermont LDV travel

 6.272 billion miles/y

In battery electricity, as DC

 0.350 kWh/mile

Charging/vampire loss factor; see Appendix 2

 1.303

Transmission and distribution loss factor

 1.075

Electricity fed to grid to charge EVs

 3.075 TWh/y

NOTE: EV charging/vampire loss factor is based on a Tesla Model S driven in upstate New York for a year, i.e., similar conditions to New England. See Appendix 2

 

NOTE: Variable, intermittent wind and solar would be unsuitable without TWh-scale energy storage, as people do need steady electricity, 24/7/365, to reliably charge their vehicles to get to work.

 

NOTE: EVs would require steady, 24/7/365 electricity from:

 

- Low-cost, low-CO2, domestic natural gas and/or

- Expensive, imported Russian/Middle East LNG, plus

- Low-cost, near-CO2-free, hydro electricity, mainly from Hydro-Quebec, via much increased tie line capacity to other grids.

 

NOTE: Some people say biofuels would be used as well. Good luck with that, as there is not enough crop acreage in Vermont and the US. The only other way is with algae ponds in sunny areas, which is at least 2 - 3 DECADES in the future to be in mass production. See above biofuel URLs

 

NOTE: In table 1:

 

The 322 g CO2/kWh, based on primary energy, is from the ISO-NE 2016 grid emissions report. ISO-NE ignores the CO2 of upstream energy.

The 322 g applies to all electricity drawn from the NE grid. See Note.

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

 

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.

 

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

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

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

 

Table 1

 

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

347

Charging/vampire loss factor is 1.303 (same as Tesla Model S in NY)

0.106

In batteries for a mix of LDVs

0.350

SUMMARY

 

EVs Charging, Impact on VT Grid and CO2 Reduction 

 

Proponents of EVs likely do not understand the impact on the VT grid.

 

RE proponents often claim EVs would be charged at night, and that it would “flatten the demand” curve. In reality, peak demands would occur late at night, instead of during late afternoon/early evening.

 

- VT monthly average travel is about 6.252/12 = 0.521 billion miles; summer monthly maximum about 0.521 x 1.14 = 0.594 b miles, winter monthly minimum about 0.521/1.14 = 0.457 b miles. Daily averages, such as during a holiday weekend, likely would vary more than 14% from those averages.

 

 - If the charging of VT EVs were evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, every day, the VT summer nighttime demand increase would be 1.14 x 3.075 billion kWh/y/(8 x 365)/1000 = 1201 MW.

 

- If the charging of VT EVs were evenly distributed during 24 hours of the day, the VT summer around-the-clock demand increase would be 400 MW. See table 1.

 

- That would be a significant increase of the normal nighttime demand of about 500 MW.

- That would be a significant increase of the normal daytime peak demand of about 700 MW, and about 900 MW during the late afternoons/early evenings of hot summer days.

- Summary Table 2 shows:

LDV miles traveled for the US, New England and Vermont.

Upstream energy and CO2 for extraction, processing and transportation are accounted for.

LNG has much greater upstream energy and CO2 than natural gas.

The data is from the URLs

 

https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles

https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-v...

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

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

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

 

Summary Table 2

US LDV

NE LDV

VT LDV

Total E10 travel, billion miles

2849.718

130.678

6.252

E10 consumption, billion gal, per EIA

142.850

6.551

0.313

Transport fraction

0.9631

0.9631

0.9631

Transport E10, billion gal

137.579

6.309

0.302

E10 MPG

20.713

20.713

20.713

.

IF E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) TO IC VEHICLES 

Higher heating value, Btu/gal, per EIA

120359

120359

120359

Upstream factor; extraction, cropping, blending, transport, etc.

1.298

1.298

1.298

Source energy, TWh

6301.293

288.954

13.823

CO2, including upstream CO2, lb/gal

23.451

23.451

23.451

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

1463.455

67.109

3.210

.

IF LNG TO GAS TURBINE PLANTS

Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA

23726

23726

Upstream factor. 

1.4286

1.4286

Source energy, TWh/y

180.146

8.6.18

.

 

 

 

Primary energy fed to gas turbine plants, TWh/y

126.100

6.033

Electricity fed to grid, TWh/y

61.213

3.075

Grid load increase, summer month, 24-h charging, MW

7961

400

Grid load increase, summer month, 8-h charging, MW

23882

1201.

Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu

120

120

Upstream factor. 

1.4286

1.4286

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

33.457

1.601

CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton

33.652

1.610

.

IF NATURAL GAS TO GAS TURBINE PLANTS

Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA

22453

22453

Upstream factor. 

1.17

1.17

Source energy, TWh/y

147.537

7.058

.

Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu

120

120

Upstream factor 

1.17

1.17

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

27.400

1.311

CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton

39.708

1.900

 

Comparison of E10, LNG and Natural Gas

 

The energy and CO2 emissions of E10, LNG and NG are compared on a source energy basis in Summary Table 3.

 

Using source energy is the proper way to make comparisons, because source energy factors vary for different fuels. NG is preferred, because it:

 

- Requires much less source energy than LNG

- Emits much less CO2 than LNG

- Is domestic; would not adversely affect the US trade balance

- Has about 1/3 the cost of Russian/Middle East LNG 

- Requires much less capital cost for additional gas lines, than increased build-out of wind and solar plus storage

 

Summary Table 3

E10

LNG

LNG versus E10

NG

NG versus E10

Source energy

TWh

TWh

CO2 reduction

TWh

CO2 reduction

US

6301.293

NE

288.954

180.146

147.537

VT

13.823

8.618

7.058

CO2 Emissions

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

US

1463.455

NE

67.109

33.457

33.652

27.400

39.709

VT

3.210

1.601

1.610

1.311

1.900

 

Future Heat Pumps

Future heat pumps would impose very significant additional demand increases of daytime demand during hot days in summer (likely already with peak demands), and additional increases of winter demand during cold days in winter.

 

VT Grid Completely Inadequate

The winter demand increases due to EVs + heat pumps, would severely stress the NE grid. In fact, almost all VT and NE high voltage and distribution grids would be completely inadequate.

 

Electricity Storage Systems

It would be financially unfeasible to use storage to cover the daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal variation of wind and solar, as the turnkey capital cost of one TWh of storage systems (delivered as AC to the HV grid) would cost about 1 billion kWh x $400/kWh = $400 billion, or $100 billion at the Holy Grail cost of $100/kWh.

The useful service live of battery systems is about 15 years.

They lose about 10% of their capacity during their life. 

Even as future battery costs would decrease, the rest of the turnkey system costs likely would not. See Appendix and URLs.

 

Wind And Solar are Much Less than Meets the Eye

In 2017, the entire load on the VT grid was about 6.030 TWh. To feed to the grid an additional 3.073 TWh for charging EVs with highly subsidized, expensive, unreliable, variable, intermittent wind and solar would be a huge financial and physical challenge, especially during summer when wind is minimal for months (just look out the window), and during winter when solar is minimal for months.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/partial-capital-cost-of...

RE Proponents Have Plans for Our Energy Future

RE proponents in Massachusetts and New York are adamantly opposing additional gas lines to provide additional low-cost gas from Pennsylvania. They want to wean us off gas and nuclear to save the world. They say NE state governments have plans to temporarily import Russian and Middle East LNG at 2 to 3 times the price of domestic gas, until they build out wind and solar. They do not say it would take a temporary period of at least 2 or 3 decades to actually implement:

 

- The planned wind and solar expansion

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/conservative-law-founda...

- Replacing nuclear plants with LNG-fired gas turbine plants

- Replacing gasoline light duty vehicles with EVs charging at night

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

- Retrofitting almost all buildings to be highly sealed/highly insulated to make them suitable for 100% heating with heat pumps

- Replacing traditional building heating systems with heat pump systems.

- About doubling the capacity of the NE grid for the increased load due to millions of electric vehicles plus millions of heat pumps.

 

NOTE: The capital cost would be much greater, if all the replacement electricity were from wind and solar, because TWh-scale energy storage systems would be required, as there would not be enough remaining gas turbine capacity to provide the peaking, filling-in and balancing services for the large quantities of variable/intermittent wind and solar.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/partial-capital-cost-of...

POLAR VORTEX AND STORAGE 

Here is an article that describes how much storage would be required, if the Midwest grid had 50% wind and 50% solar during the recent 7-day polar vortex of Jan. 27 - Feb. 2, 2019, in the Midwest.

Wind would need to be increased from 47,800 MW to in 2018 to 194,000 MW.

Solar would need to be increased from 3,400 MW in 2018 to 575,000 MW.

Storage would need to be increased from 11,000 MW in 2018 to 277,900 MW to ensure continuous electricity service during the polar vortex. BTW, storage capacity must be specified, such as 100 MW/129 MWh; stating only one value is improper.

The capital cost would be well over one TRILLION dollars.

 

The main requirement is to have sufficient wind and solar capacity so that excess electricity would be generated for satisfying demand, plus for storing excess electricity to be used during the hours when wind and solar electricity by itself would be insufficient to meet demand. See graph and URL

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-renewable-e...

INCREASED IMPORTED RUSSIAN/MIDDLE EAST LNG

 

If LNG were used for electricity generation for EVs and heat pumps:

- A 377/32 = 12-fold increase of Everett-size tanker loads would be required, if Russian/Middle East LNG.

- Everett could handle at most 100 Everett-size tanker loads/y, if operated at high output, 24/7/365.

- The required terminal expansion would need to be for at least 377 - 100 = 277 tanker loads, plus for heat pumps. See table 4.

 

Summary Table 4

 Capital cost

 LNG tanker loads

 Everett LNG tanker loads

$billion

67500 mt/each

33340 mt/each

Existing

 

0

32

Planned wind and solar expansion

49.4

Nuclear to electricity from gas turbine plants

9.7

67

136

Gasoline to electricity from G/T plants

44.1

119

241

Total

103.2

186

377

Building retrofit, plus heat pumps

TBD

TBD

TBD

RE proponents insist on saving the world by what would involve, during future decades:

 

- Permanently ruining tens of thousands of acres of meadows for solar, plus

- Permanently ruining hundreds of miles of pristine ridgeline for onshore wind, plus

- At least a thousand square miles of expensive offshore wind, plus

- Expanding the capacity of NE LNG terminals to deal with the additional LNG tanker load, plus

- Expanding the NE grid to about double its capacity, after heat pumps, etc., also are added. See Appendix and URLs.

 

RE proponents likely did not consider:

 

- Just the daily charging shows very significant increases in demand, if charging is evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, or if charging is evenly distributed over 24 hours.

- Just to orchestrate the even distribution of charging EVs would be a major effort. The charging has to be evenly distributed otherwise, if everyone plugged in at certain hours, the grid would blow up.

- Just to provide the fuel (Russian and Middle East LNG at 2 to 3 times the price of domestic gas) for the new gas-fired generators would be a major effort.

 - Just to provide the grid for supporting a major increase in nighttime demand would be a major effort.

 - Heat pumps and converting transport diesel and other transport fuels to EVs would be in addition.

 - Hydro-Quebec could provide at most an additional 15 TWh/y, on a 24/7/365 basis, of the about 60 TWh/y needed just for the New England EVs. See Appendix and URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-governors-s...

APPENDIX 1

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 2 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 2 and 3 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 2.

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 2/Tesla Model 3

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

 

Table 3/MODEL 3, 2019, 100 kWh

%

kWh

 kWh/mile

Basis

EPA combined, WM basis

0.2900

EPA combined, VM basis

0.290 x 0.85

0.2465

.

%

kWh/y

Real-world driving, WM basis

3442/11174

3442

0.3080

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, VM basis

2737/11174

0.2449

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 2

One-Year Experience With a Tesla Model S

 

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 electrical losses.

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

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

 

Table 4 shows the electricity from the wall meter, charging loss, vampire loss, the electricity available for driving, and the loss factor.   

 

Table 4/MODEL S, 2019, 100 kWh

%

kWh

Miles

 kWh/mile

Basis

EPA combined, WM basis

0.350

EPA combined, VM basis

0.350 x 0.85

0.298

.

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, WM basis

6614/15243

6614

0.434

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, VM basis

5074/15243

0.333

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

In this article, I used 0.350 kWh/mile, in battery basis, for a mix of NE LDVs (cars, crossovers, SUVs, minivans, ¼-ton pick-ups, short- and long wheel base). It accounts for real-world driving conditions, such as resting/vampire loss, hot and cold weather operation, road conditions, hilly terrain, snow, more than one person and/or cargo in a vehicle

 

However, the Tesla model S used 0.333 kWh/mile, in battery basis, during real-world conditions.

My assumed 0.350 kWh/mile for a mix of EVs likely is too low, based on real-world driving conditions in NE. Table 2.

 

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

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

APPENDIX 3

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...

 

Table 6/H-Q

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...

Views: 263

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 March 4, 2019 at 10:50pm

Hi Frank,

With this article, I am merely showing what the consequences are, if all gasoline LDVs in Vermont became plug-in electric vehicles.

Hybrids would be allowed, only if using bio-fuel and electrcity. 

All this is in accordance with the desires of the 100% RE folks, who likely have not a clue regarding making these calculations, and the A to Z implications.

Those folks need to be shown the numbers related to their RE wishes.

I held a talk regarding heat pumps a few weeks ago, and folks were just flabbergasted that they were useless for energy hog houses, and that politicians were putting the horse BEHIND the cart. 

First they should have given the houses DEEP retrofits to make them highly sealed/highly insulated, then install the heat pumps.

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on March 4, 2019 at 7:13pm

Sounds highly idealistic and then there is the problem of all those people in non EV cars and trucks traveling in and across VT. Close the borders? 

Hydro Quebec is still the clear winner; while turbines get older and more expensive to maintain.

Comment by Willem Post on March 3, 2019 at 1:31pm

Long Islander,

Houses have to be highly sealed and highly insulated to have heat pumps displace 100% of the fuel oil, i.e., 17000 Btu/h at -20F outside and 65fF inside. About 1% of Vermont houses qualify.

If you add a heat pump to a typical existing house, i.e., 65000 Btu/h at -20F outside and 65F inside, it would displace about 32 to 34 % of the fuel oil and the savings would be just a few hundred dollars for a heat pump that costs, fully installed, about $4500 to $5000.

The MA House Speaker has not a clue what he is talking about with his $1 billion. It sounds big to uninformed people, but it is just a drop of water on a hot plate.

That is the same insane bravura used by Vermont CEP and EAN state bureaucrat authors; totally off the wall, totally lacking insight, and totally disconnected from reality and market conditions.

These nitwits are influencing Legislators with their nonsense, and feel-good laws, with subsidies, are passed that basically steal money out of the pockets of hardworking households trying to make ends meet in the near zero, real growth Vermont economy.

Every time the Vermont economy shows a little life, they impose more taxes on it that act like a wet blanket. No wonder Vermont  is losing tax-paying households

Comment by Long Islander on March 3, 2019 at 12:08pm

Meanwhile:

Mass House Speaker proposes $1b in municipal climate investments
HOUSE SPEAKER ROBERT DELEO proposed a sweeping $1 billion environmental grant program Friday that, over the next decade, would fund municipal efforts to build renewable-energy infrastructure and invest in climate resiliency programs.
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/deleo-proposes-1b-in-munici...

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