REPLACING GASOLINE CONSUMPTION WITH ELECTRICITY IN NEW ENGLAND

RE proponents want to “electrify” the New England transportation sector. That means:

 

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

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

 

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 energy used to produce the biofuels (cropping, processing, transport, etc.) were entirely from renewable sources, its CO2 would also not be counted. See note.

 

NOTE: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 450 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.

The US has a total agricultural area of about 300 million acres.

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

SUMMARY

 

EVs Charging, Impact on NE Grid and CO2 Reduction 

 

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

 

- NE monthly average travel is about 130.678/12 = 10.89 billion miles; summer monthly maximum about 10.89 x 1.14 = 12.41 b miles, winter monthly minimum about 10.89/1.14 = 9.55 b miles. Daily averages, such as for a holiday weekend, likely would vary more than 14% from the annual average.

 

The mix of light duty vehicles, LDVs, is assumed to require 0.350 kWh/mile, as measured by the vehicle meter, which would require 56.543 TWh/y to be fed to the NE grid to charge the LDVs during the year, if gas turbines were used at 50% efficiency. BTW, wind and solar would be unsuitable without TWh-scale energy storage, as people do need to reliably charge their vehicles to get to work.

 

- If the charging of NE EVs were evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, every day, the NE summer nighttime demand increase would be 1.14 x 56.543 billion kWh/y/(8 x 365)/1000 = 22060 MW. See table 1.

 

- If the charging of NE EVs were evenly distributed during 24 hours of the day, the NE summer around-the-clock demand increase would be 7353 MW. See table 1.

 

- That would be a significant increase of the normal nighttime demand of about 12000 MW. The normal daytime peak demand is about 22000 MW, and about 24500 MW during the late afternoons of hot summer days.

 

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 1

US LDV

NE LDV

Total E10 travel, billion miles

2849.718

130.678

E10 consumption, billion gal, per EIA

142.850

6.551

Transport fraction

0.9631

0.9631

Transport E10, billion gal

137.579

6.309

E10 MPG

20.713

20.713

.

E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) 

Higher heating value, Btu/gal, per EIA

120359

120359

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

1.298

1.298

Source energy, TWh

6301.293

288.954

CO2, including upstream CO2, lb/gal

23.451

23.451

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

1463.455

67.109

.

LNG

Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA

23726

Upstream factor. See Appendix 12

1.4286

Source energy, TWh/y

166.400

.

 

 

Primary energy fed to gas turbines, TWh/y

116.478

Electricity fed to grid, TWh/y

56.543

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

7353

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

22060

.

Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu

120

Upstream factor. See Appendix 12

1.4286

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

30.904

CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton

36.205

.

NATURAL GAS

Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA

22453

Upstream factor. See Appendix 12

1.17

Source energy, TWh/y

136.279

.

Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu

120

Upstream factor. See Appendix 12

1.17

CO2, SE basis, million metric ton

25.320

CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton

41.799

 

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 the Summary Table.

 

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 1/3 the cost of Russian/Middle East LNG 

- Requires much less capital cost

 

Summary Table 2

E10

LNG

LNG versus E10

NG

NG versus E10

Source energy

TWh

TWh

CO2 reduction

TWh

CO2 reduction

US

6301.293

NE

288.954

166.400

136.279

CO2 Emissions

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

US

1463.455

NE

67.109

30.904

36.205

25.310

41.799

 

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.

 

NE Grid Completely Inadequate

The winter demand increases due to EVs + heat pumps, would severely stress the NE grid. In fact, almost all 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, and seasonal variation of wind and solar, as the turnkey capital cost of one TWh of storage systems (as delivered to the HV grid) would cost about 1 billion kWh x $400/kWh = $400 billion. 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 NE grid was about 121.061 TWh. To feed to the grid an additional 56.543 TWh for charging EVs with highly subsidized, expensive, unreliable, variable, intermittent wind and solar would be a huge 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. See Appendix.

 

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 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...

- Replacing traditional building heating systems with heat pump systems.

- About doubling the capacity of the NE grid for the increased demand and load.

 

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.

 

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 100% capacity, 24/7/365.

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

 

Summary Table 3

 Capital cost

 LNG tanker loads

 Everett LNG tanker loads

$billion

67500 mt/each

33340 mt/each

Existing tanker loads

 

0

32

Planned wind and solar expansion

49.4

Nuclear to gas turbine plants

9.7

67

136

Gasoline to electricity from G/T plants

44.1

119

241

Total

103.2

186

377

Heat pump transition

TBA

TBA

TBA

 

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 tanker loads, 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; 22060 MW, if charging is evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, 7353 MW, 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 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 an increase in nighttime demand from 12000 MW to 32000 MW 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 20%, about 12 TWh/y, on a 24/7/365 basis, of what is needed just for the EVs. SeeAppendix 5 of URL.

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

 

ANALYSIS

 

US LDV Miles and Mileage in 2016

 

- Miles driven by LDV, short wheel base, including passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WB) equal to or less than 121 inches, was 2,191,764 million miles in 2016.

- Miles driven by LDV, long wheel base, including large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches, was 657,954 million miles in 2016.

- Total miles 2,849,718 million in 2016.

 

Table 1

US LDV

Short wheel base, million miles

2191764

Long wheel base, million miles

657954

Total, million miles

2849718

Total E10 production, billion gal

142.850

Transport fraction

0.9631

Transport E10, billion gal

137.579

E10 MPG

20.7

All fuel MPG. See URL.

22.0

 

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

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

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

 

E10 Consumption, Electricity for EVs, CO2 Emissions, Tanker Loads of LNG

 

E10 Consumption

US total E10 consumption was 142.850 billion gallons in 2016.

NE transport E10 consumption was 6.309 billion gallon in 2016. See table 2, URL and Appendix.

http://ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/energy/18ener6a.pdf

 

Electricity for EVs

New Englanders drove about 130.678 billion E10 miles/y in 2016, at an assumed 20.7 mpg, the same as US E10 average.

 

Electricity generation for EVs would be about 58.239 billion kWh/y. Generating for EVs from LNG would require 119 tanker loads/y, for a total of 186 tanker loads/y. See tables 2A and 2B.

 

The assumed 0.350 kWh/mile (in batteries as measured by EV meter) is the average of all LDVs (cars, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups, short and long wheel base). See table 2.

 

NOTE: Generating 31.538 billion kWh of NE nuclear in 2017 from LNG would require 67 tanker loads of LNG/y. See table 2B and URL.

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

 

NOTE: This analysis covers only the transport E10. Any electricity generation required to replace other E10, diesel fuel and for operating heat pumps, etc., would be in addition.

 

NOTE: The nighttime charging of EVs requires a reliable, steady electricity supply, not dependent on wind and sun, otherwise millions of people likely would not be able to get to work the next day.

 

NOTE: The LNG supply during the next few decades likely would be from Russia and the Middle East at about $9/million Btu, which would be at least 3 times more costly than pipeline gas from Pennsylvania. Also:

 

- The imports from enemy and unstable countries would be politically unwise, and adversely affect the US trade balance. Massachusetts and New York politicians and their RE proponents are in favor of such imported LNG.

- The more expensive electricity from the imported LNG would be a major headwind for NE economic development and growth.

 

CO2 Emissions

In 2016, the CO2 emitted by NE transport E10 was about 6.309 b gal x 23.451 lb/gal = 67.109 million metric ton/y, including upstream from well to tank. See table 2.

 

 The total CO2 of a gallon of E10 is about 23.451 lb, including upstream. See Appendix. This value includes:

 

- Combustion CO2 of E10

- Upstream CO2 of energy for extracting, processing, and transporting E10 (well to tank)

- Combustion CO2 of ethanol, which was set at 0, per international convention.

- Cropping, processing, blending and transport CO2 to produce ethanol.

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

 

Table 2/2016

2016

42

20.7

0.350

CO2 emissions

 

barrels of E10

1000 gallon of E10

billion miles with E10

TWh in batteries

million Mt

E10 vehicles

Transport

Transport

Transport

Transport

Transport

MA

64895

2725590

56.456

19.760

28.993

CT

34555

1451310

30.061

10.522

15.438

ME

18485

776370

16.081

5.628

8.258

NH

16513

693546

14.366

5.028

7.377

RI

8577

360234

7.462

2.612

3.832

VT

7186

301812

6.252

2.188

3.210

NE

150211

6308862

130.678

45.737

67.109

 

 

Table 2A

NE

VT

RI

NH

ME

CT

MA

Nuke to LNG

LNG requirement

kWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

TWh

PE, gas turbines

0.891

116.478

5.572

6.651

12.805

14.334

26.795

50.321

64.968

Conversion loss. 50%

0.446

Electricity generation

0.446

58.239

2.786

3.325

6.402

7.167

13.397

25.161

32.484

Self-use loss, 3.0%

0.013

Fed to grid

0.433

56.543

2.705

3.229

6.216

6.958

13.007

24.428

31.538

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.030

To meters

0.403

52.598

2.516

3.003

5.782

6.473

12.100

22.724

EV charging loss, 15%

0.053

In batteries; mix of LDVs

0.350

45.737

2.188

2.612

5.03

5.63

10.522

19.760

 

Tanker Loads of LNG; excludes heat pumps

 

Table 2B/Tanker loads

E10 vehicles to EVs

Nuclear to Gas turbine

Total LNG

LNG

LNG

LNG

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

LNG, TWh

113.872

64.968

178.840

LNG, million metric ton

7.882

4.497

12.379

Tanker loads of LNG

119

67

186

1 million metric ton LNG, MWh

14447205

1 million metric ton LNG, TWh

14.447

Tanker load of LNG, metric ton

67500

 

Charging the EVs During a Peak Summer Month

 

Miles travelled during a peak summer month is about 14% greater than the annual average.

 

- If the EVs were charged 24 hours/d, the NE grid load increaseduring that peak month would be an averageof 7353 MW. The new gas turbine capacity would be about 9804 MW, at a turnkey capital cost of $14.7 billion, plus $billions more for grid expansion and new LNG terminals or pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

- If the EVs were charged 8 hours/d, the NE grid load increaseduring that peak month would be an averageof 22060 MW. The new gas turbine capacity would be about 29413 MW, at a turnkey capital cost of $44.1 billion, plus $billions more for grid expansion and new LNG terminals or pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

NE

Table 3/Fed to grid for EVs, billion kWh/y

56.543

Month/y

12

Summer factor

1.14

Summer generation, TWh/month

5.37

h/y

8766

h/m

730.5

Charging time, h/d

24

8

Summer grid load to charge EVs, MW

7353

22060

Capacity factor

0.9

0.9

Reserve margin

1.2

1.2

Installed capacity for charging of EVs, MW

9804

29413

Capital cost, $million/MW

1.5

1.5

Turnkey capital cost, $billion

14.7

44.1

 

Increased Load and Generation on NE Grid

 

Electrifying the NE transportation sector would result in significantly increased load and generation on the NE grid. See table 4.

 

EVs Charging: RE proponents claim EVs would be charged at night, and that it would “flatten the demand” curve. In reality, peak demands would occur at night, instead of during the day.

 

If the charging of all EVs were evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, every day, the nighttime demand increase during a peak summer month would be 22060 MW

 

If the charging of all EVs were evenly distributed during 24 hours of the day, the around-the-clock demand increase during a peak summer month would be 7353 MW.

 

- That would be a significant increase of the normal nighttime demand of about 12000 MW. The normal daytime peak demand is about 22000 MW, and about 24500 MW during the late afternoons of hot summer days.

 

- The existing gas turbine capacity (which by now would include the gas turbines needed to replace nuclear) definitely would not be sufficient to provide that new nighttime demand and electricity. 

 

- Future heat pumps would impose very significant additionaldemand 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.

 

- The winter demand increases due to EVs + heat pumps, would severely stress NE generation capacity and fuel supply, and the NE grid. In fact, NE generation capacity and NE grid would be completely inadequate.

 

That means the following requirements:

 

1) A full complement of gas turbines to provide peaking, filling-in and balancing services and any electricity not provided by wind and solar.

2) Significantly increased capacity of connections to New York and Canada 

3) TWh-scale storage systems (delivered as AC to high voltage grids).

 

NOTE:Wind and solar cannot ever be relied upon for electric service at 99.97% reliability, 24/7/365, year after year. 

On an AC-to-AC basis, up to 20% of any energy passing through storage is lost.

Additional generation is required to make up for that loss.

 

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

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

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

APPENDIX 1

Source Energy and Source CO2 factors for Gasoline, Ethanol and E10

 

Biofuels, including ethanol, require far more energyfrom various fossil fuels and chemicals to produce them than gasoline. The combustion CO2 of ethanol is not counted, because the next crop reabsorbs the CO2 a year later, per international agreement.

See table 4.

 

Producing 1 million Btu of gasoline, HHV, requires about 230000 Btu of various energy inputs.

Producing 1 million Btu of ethanol, HHV, requires about 914414 Btu of various energy inputs. See arb.ca URL.

Producing 1 million Btu of E10 requires 0.9 x 230000 + 0.1 x 914414 = 298441 Btu of various energy inputs.

 

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

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

https://h2tools.org/hyarc/calculator-tools/lower-and-higher-heating...

 

Table 4

Ethanol

Ethanol

Gasoline

E10

ENERGY

With credit

 No credit

 No credit

 No credit

Fuel produced, HHV, Btu. See URL

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

Co-products, Btu. See URL

97301

0

0

0

Primary energy, Btu

1097301

1000000

1000000

1000000

.

Cropping, processing, transport, Btu

914414

914414

Extraction, processing, transport, Btu

230000

298441

Source energy, Btu

2011715

1914414

1230000

1298441

Factor = SE/PE

1.8333

1.9144

1.2300

1.2984

.

CO2 EMISSIONS

HHV, Btu/gal. See URL

84530

124340

120359

LHV, Btu/gal, See URL

76330

116090

112114

LHV ratio = 1.0355

Combustion CO2, lb/gal. See URL

12.720

19.640

18.948

Crop, process, transport CO2, lb/gal

13.556

0.25 x 19.640 = 4.9100

Extract, process, transport CO2, lb/gal

4.9100

5.775

13.556 x 0.1 + 4.9100 x 0.9

Source CO2, bio CO2 counted, lb/gal

26.276

24.550

24.723

Factor = Source/Combustion CO2

2.0657

1.2500

1.3048

Source CO2, bio not counted, lb/gal

13.556

24.550

23.451

13.556 x 0.1 + 24.550 x 0.9

Factor = Source/Combustion CO2

1.0657

1.2500

1.2376

1.25 per EPA

.

Fuel, HHV, gal/million Btu

11.830

8.042

8.308

Gallon ratio = 1.0331

Total CO2, not counted, lb/million Btu

160.369

197.442

194.839

 

APPENDIX 2

EIA reported total E10 consumption of 142.85 billion gallons in 2017.

The transport fraction is about 0.9631.

Transport consumption was 137.579 billion gallons of E10 and E15, almost all E10.

Calculated transport CO2 was 1101.80 million metric ton in 2017.

EIA reported transport CO2 of 1102 million metric ton for 2016.

Numbers for 2017 are not yet available.

 

Table 5

E10

E10

E15

E15

2017

90/10

90/10

85/15

85/15

Ethanol combustion, lb CO2/gal, counted

12.72

0.10

1.272

0.15

1.908

Ethanol combustion, lb CO2/gal, not counted

0

0

Gasoline combustion, lb CO2/gal

19.64

0.90

17.676

0.85

16.694

lb CO2/gal, counted

18.948

18.602

lb CO2/gal, not counted

17.676

16.694

Fraction

0.98

0.02

Total E10 in 2017, billion gallons

142.85

Transport fraction

0.9631

E10 + E15 consumption, billion gal

134.82

2.75

137.57

CO2, million metric ton, counted

1158.75

23.22

1181.97

CO2, million metric ton, not counted

1080.97

20.83

1101.80

EIA reported for 2016, gasoline

1102.00

EIA reported for 2016, diesel

437.00

 

APPENDIX 3

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

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

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

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

NE wind offshore, until recently, was about 18 c/kWh. See Note.

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

 

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, fifteen miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, using 8 or 10 MW turbines, 750 ft tall.

Phase 1 on line in 2021, electricity offered at an average of 8.9 c/kWh over 20 years

Phase 2 offered at an average of 7.9 c/kWh over 20 years

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

 

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Local Market Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.


https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

 

APPENDIX 4

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 5

The below table shows the highly efficient Prius plug-in imposes much less load on the NE grid than a mix of LDVs.

EPA Combined MPGeq for a Prius plug-in = 33.7 kWh/0.2533 kWh/mile (wall meter) = 133.

The 322 g CO2/kWh is from the ISO-NE 2016 grid emissions report.

The 8% upstream is assumed the same as for the US grid. See table 6.

 

Table 6

Mix of LDVs

Prius Plug-in

g CO2/kWh

g CO2/kWh

No upstream

With 8% upstream

Primary energy to gas turbines

0.891

0.561

Conversion loss, 50%

0.446

0.280

Electricity generation for EVs

0.446

0.280

Self-use loss, 3.0%

0.013

0.008

Fed to grid = grid load

0.433

0.272

322

348

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.030

0.019

To meters, measured by EPA

0.403

0.253

347

374

EV charging loss, 15%

0.053

0.033

In batteries

0.350

0.220

398

430

 

The stuff taken out of the ground, etc., requires energy for extraction, processing, transport to produce fuels for feeding to power plants which convert it to electricity, which, less self-use, is fed to the grid, plus imports, less T&D losses, finally arrives at electric meters.

 

NOTE:

- About 8% of the combustion CO2 of the fuel fed to power plants (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the fuel. The ISO-NE g/kWh values in its 2016 report do notinclude the 8%. Source energy CO2 = 1.08 x primary energy CO2.

- About 29.8% of the combustion CO2 of a gallon of E10 fed to vehicles (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the E10. Source energy CO2 = 1.298 x primary energy CO2.

 

NOTE: Source energy - energy for extraction, processing, transport = primary energy = fed to power plants.

 

Below is a table based on EPA data

 

The EPA measures EV electricity at the wall meter during testing.

The EPA upstream (if it is accounted for) would likely be based on primary energy, not source energy.

A Tesla Model S has slightly less CO2/mile than a Prius hybrid.

A Tesla Model 3 has significantly less CO2/mile than a Prius hybrid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid

 

Table 7/Prius plug-in

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 50% electric mode

0.2533 x 18 c/kWh x 0.50 x 12000

274

Cost of travel/y, 50% hybrid mode

12000/54 mpg x 0.50 x $2.80/gal

311

Total cost of travel/y

585

0.0492

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emission, SE basis, electric mode

0.2533 x 12000 x 374 NE grid x 0.50

568405

95

CO2 emission, SE basis, hybrid mode

12000/54 x 23.451 lb x 454 x 0.50

1182973

197

Total CO2 emission, PE basis

1751378

146

Tesla, Model S, 4wd

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode

0.381 x 18 c/kWh x 12000

823

0.0686

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

0.381 x 12000 x 374 NE grid

1709928

142

Tesla Model 3, 4wd, Edmunds road test

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode

0.302 x 18 c/kWh x 12000

652

0.0544

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

0.302 x 12000 x 374 NE grid

1355376

113

Future compact IC vehicle @ 38 mpg

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel

12000/38 x $2.80

884

0.0700

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

12000/38 x 23.451 x 454

3362133

280

Subaru Outback, 4wd @ 30 mpg

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel

12000/30 x $2.80

1120

0.0933

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

12000/30 x 23.451 x 454

4258702

355

 

Tesla Model 3 Road Test

A recent road test of the Tesla Model 3, performed by Edmunds, showed 1388 miles of driving in California, some of it on hills

- Wall meter consumption was 302 kWh/100 miles.

- Vehicle meter consumption was 251.7 kWh/100 miles. See table 7A

- The loss for charging/resting is 16.7%, greater than the 12.5% assumed in this article. See tables 7, 7A

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

 

Table 7A/Road test, Model 3, 2017, by Edmunds

EPA

Travel, miles

1388

Average electricity, wall meter, kWh/mile

0.3020

0.2700

Average electricity, vehicle meter, kWh/mile

0.2517

Loss, charging/resting, kWh

0.0503

Loss for charging/idle time, %

16.7

 

APPENDIX 6

LNG Deliveries to Everett, MA, During 2017/2018 Gas Shortage

Delivering the LNG: The Christophe de Margerie, a Russian-owned icebreaking tanker, named after the deceased former CEO of Total, motored into Isle de Grain, UK, on Dec. 28, according to market information provider ICIS. It unloaded LNG from the new Yamal gas/oil plant in Russia. See URLs and Note.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/lng-yamal-shipping/table-arc7-class...

https://photos.fleetmon.com/vessels/eduard-toll_9750696_2272589_XLa...

https://www.vesselfinder.com/?p=2511

The Gaselys, a French-owned tanker, arrived at Isle de Grain, UK, which is a large LNG storage facility in the UK that receives gas from many sources, including the Netherlands, Norway, Middle East, Russia, etc.

It took on a cargo of commingled LNG, including LNG from the Christophe de Margerie, an ice-breaking LNG carrier; LNG capacity 172,600 m3, or 77,670 metric ton.  See Note.

Isle de Grain left the port on Jan. 7 

It arrived at the ENGIE terminal (owned by a French company) in Everett, Mass., three weeks later and delivered its payload.

Both tankers were built in Korea.

 

Everett LNG Terminal: LNG is imported from Trinidad and Tobago, where the gas is cooled to -260 F, turned into LNG, reducing the volume by 1/600th, then shipped to Everett.

The gas fields of Trinidad and Tobago have had decreasing outputs due to depletion, which means increased likelihood of more expensive LNG from Louisiana and highly expensive LNG from Russia and the Middle East, while various NE energy measures are being implemented during the next few decades.

Average LNG density = 450 kg/m3 x 0.62428 = 28.1 lb/ft3, depends on gas composition and temperature.

Everett has 2 LNG tanks, each 180 feet tall.

Everett LNG storage is about 160,461 m3, or 3.4 bcf (gas equivalent after gasifying the LNG); peak vaporizing capacity 1.0 bcf/d; maximum continuous 0.715 bcf/d,

GDF Suez Gaz NA, a French company, owns the LNG plants in Trinidad and Tobago that supply most of the LNG to Everett.

It is amazing how much of the LNG infrastructure, and LNG storage plants, and LNG fleets are built and owned by foreigners! See URL.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-eu-and-internationa...

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076897

http://www.powermag.com/everett-lng-terminal-at-the-crossroads/?pag...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lng-terms-tonsyear-cubic-meters-btus...

 

NOTE: Shipments of Russian oil and gas are not subject to sanctions, but “US persons and those in the US” are prohibited from financing Novatek, the lead company in the construction of Yamal LNG. The French, our friendly trading partner, took advantage of that.

 

- 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...

APPENDIX 7

Vermont ALL Vehicles Miles and Mileage in 2015

 

- Vehicle miles driven on VT roads was about 7.31 billion in 2015, an estimate of the miles driven with all types ofvehicles, using all types of fuel. See page 5 of URL.

- The E10, diesel and compressed natural gas, CNG, consumption were 319.8, 67.9 and 0.143 million gallon, respectively. See page 31 of URL.

- The all vehicle, all fuel mileage would be about 7.31 billion miles/(319.9 + 67.9 x 128488/112114, LHV ratio + 0.143 million gallon) = 18.4 mpg, which is similar to other calculated values. See table 1 and page 29 of URL.  

 

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

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

 

Table 9

VT

All vehicles, all fuels, billion miles

7.31

E10, million gal

319.8

Diesel, million gal

67.9

Diesel x (LHV ratio = 128488/112114)

77.8

CNG, million gal

0.143

Gal eq, million gal

397.8

All vehicle, all fuel MPG

18.4

APPENDIX 8

Just supplying the electricity to the NE EVs would require 56.543 TWh/y to be fed into the NE grid, equivalent to about 117 tanker loads of Russian and Middle East LNG per year. LNG at 3x the price of domestic gas. 

 

NOTE: The Jones act forbids LNG shipments from Louisiana to Everett, MA.

NOTE: Mass and New York are opposed to increased pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

The LNG terminal would need to be able to store about 1 to 2 weeks of LNG to ensure continuous supply.

 

The present LNG terminal in Everett, MA, could handle at most about 61 tanker loads per year.

 

Storage, 3.4 billion cubic foot

Delivery, maximum continuous, could be 0.7 billion cubic foot/d.

All of the current Everett LNG is already spoken for.

All LNG supply for EVs, etc., would be additional. See table 10

 

NOTE:

- Each tanker load in this article holds 67500 metric ton of LNG.

- Each shipload at the Everett LNG terminal holds an average of about 33340 metric ton of LNG.

- About 120/y such shiploads would be required to operate the terminal at 100% capacity; current shiploads are at a rate of about 31.3/y.

- RE proponents want to ship more LNG through the terminal, but one must not forget that additional LNG would not be coming from friendly Trinidad at $5/million Btu, but from hostile Russia and the Middle East at $9/million Btu, in foreign-owned tankers, built in foreign shipyards, crewed by foreigners. Putting America first?

 

Table 10

Everett

Everett size

Storage capacity, billion cubic foot

3.4

Delivery, maximum continuous, bcf/d

0.7

Delivery, maximum continuous, billion Btu/d

700

Delivery, maximum continuous, billion kWh/d

0.205

Delivery, maximum continuous, TWh/y

67.241

LNG, million metric ton

4.654

Tanker loads/y, at 100% capacity factor

69

140

Tanker loads/y, at 26.2% capacity factor

18

37

NE EVs, additional LNG

LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y

116.478

LNG, million metric ton

8.062

Tanker loads/y

119

241

Nuclear to LNG, additional LNG

LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y

64.968

LNG, million metric ton

4.497

Tanker loads/y

67

136

Total tanker loads/y

186

377

.

1 million metric ton LNG, MWh

14447205

1 million metric ton LNG, TWh

14.447

Tanker load of LNG, metric ton

67500

Everett tanker load of LNG, metric ton

33340

APPENDIX 9

The Everett, MA, LNG terminal is operated at a capacity factor of about 0.26, the average of 2016/2017.

It received about 2.49 shiploads/month in 2017, and slightly less than 2.73 shiploads per month in 2016.

It operated at a capacity factor of about 0.46 during January and February 2016, during which it received 9 shiploads, or about 4.5 shiploads loads per month.

The increased shiploads is due to additional gas demand for generating electricity and space heating.

All this LNG is shipped from Trinidad from gas fields with decreasing outputs.

The average price of Russian/Middle East LNG is about $9/million Btu.

The average price of Trinidad LNG is about $5/million Btu.

The average price of pipeline gas from Pennsylvania is about $2.70/million Btu.

 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe1_a_EPG0_IML_Mmcf_a.htm

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/LNG%202016_0.pdf

 

Table 11

2016

2016

2017

Trinidad

Trinidad

Trinidad

million cf for 60 days

million cf

 million cf

Shipload

9

33

30

Shipload/month

4.5

2.73

2.49

Supply, million cf

19225

69928

63936

Supply, bcf

19.2254

69.9280

63.9360

Gas/ship load, bcf

2.1362

2.1362

2.1362

Delivered gas to users, bcf/d

320

192

175

Period, d

60

365

365

Generated electricity, billion kWh

2.8173

10.2474

9.3693

Fed to NE grid, TWh/d

0.0454

0.0271

0.0248

Actual capacity factor

0.46

0.27

0.25

 

APPENDIX 10

Below are the results of two studies of the CO2 emissions of NG and LNG on a life cycle basis.

The upstream factor for NG is 1.170

The upstream factor for LNG is (1.4115 +1.4457)/2 = 1.4286

Those factors were used in Table 1

 

Study 1

 

NG

NG

NG

LNG

LNG

LNG

Total

low

high

avg

low

high

avg

Extraction

6.20

7.30

6.75

Processing

3.00

3.00

3.00

Transmission/Storage

6.90

7.80

7.35

Distribution

3.30

3.30

3.30

Combustion

120.00

120.00

120.00

Liquefaction

11.00

31.00

21.00

Tanker transport

2.20

7.30

5.70

Regasification

0.85

3.70

2.28

CO2, lb/million Btu

140.40

28.98

169.38

Upstream factor, 140.40/120

1.1700

1.4115

 

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

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

 

Study 2

 

LNG

LNG

LNG

low

high

avg

Well drilling

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.7

Extraction

3.0

3.2

3.1

5.4

Processing/Dehydration

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Processing/All other

5.2

5.5

5.4

9.3

Transport to liquefaction

1.8

1.9

1.9

3.2

Shipping

7.5

12.5

10.0

17.4

Regasification

3.2

6.6

4.9

8.5

Transport to power plant

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.5

Electricity generation

5.2

4.6

4.9

8.5

73.5

64.7

69.1

120.0

100.0

99.8

99.9

173.5

Factor

1.4457

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 627

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