TESLA MODEL 3 LONG-TERM ROAD TEST by EDMUNDS

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...

 

- The EPA combined mpg of Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, laboratory conditions, is 29 kWh/100 miles

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

- Edmond testing mpg, with various drivers, various road trips, was about 31 kWh/100 miles

- The charging/resting time loss was about 20.6%, with various drivers and various road trips.

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

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

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

 

Table 4/Tesla Model 3

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Odometer

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Test travel, miles

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh/100 m

Lifetime average

31.70

31.40

31.80

31.70

31.00

31.10

30.80

Vehicle meter, kWh/100 m

Lifetime average

25.17

24.83

25.03

25.09

24.76

24.70

24.49

Charging loss

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

Charging loss, kWh/100 m

4.755

4.71

4.77

4.76

4.65

4.67

4.62

Resting loss, kWh/10 0m

1.78

1.86

2.00

1.86

1.59

1.74

1.69

Resting loss

0.056

0.059

0.063

0.059

0.051

0.056

0.055

Total loss, kWh/100 m

6.53

6.57

6.77

6.61

6.24

6.40

6.31

Total loss, %

20.60

20.92

21.29

20.85

20.13

20.58

20.49

Tesla Model 3 Prices

 

Tesla requires a $2500 deposit before an order is accepted.

Base price Model 3 with 4WD, long range battery ($9000), premium interior ($5000) is $57000

Pearl white paint is $2000

Total is $59000

If you add the $5,000 Enhanced Autopilot package and $3,000 Full-Self-Driving Capability, the total is $67000, before any tax credits.

https://www.kbb.com/tesla/model-3/2018/

https://3.tesla.com/model3/design?#payment

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 (bold numbers in table). There was significant kWh/mile variation throughout the year. His real world annual average was 0.392 kWh/mile, house-meter basis, and 0.333 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis.

 

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

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

- Owners may use more or less than 0.392 kWh/mile in other US regions.  

- 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...

 

NOTE: In these article, I used 0.350 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis, for a mix of NE LDVs (cars, SUVs, minivans, ¼-ton pick-ups, short- and long wheel base). As the Tesla Model S, with a very low drag coefficient, shows an annual average of 0.333 kWh/mile (vehicle meter basis), my assumed 0.350 kWh/mile likely is significantly too low. Table 2.

 

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

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

 

Table 2/Tesla, Model S

Electricity cost, c/kWh

19.0

Travel, miles/y

15243

Vehicle meter, kWh/y

5074

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.333

5074/15243

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.301

Apr-Oct

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.290

July

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.371

Nov-Feb

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.400

Jan

House meter, kWh/y 

5969

 

Charging, resting time factor

0.85

kWh/mile, house meter

0.392

5969/15243

Travel cost, c/mile

7.4

5969 x 19/15243

Load Increase on NE Grid due to EVs

 

The load increase on the NE grid would be due to a mix of LDVs (cars, SUVs, minivans, ¼ ton pickups, short- and long wheel base).

 

If all NE LDVs became EVs, the load increase on the NE grid would be 56.543 TWh/y, or a 56.543/121.061 = 46.7% increase.

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

NOTE: 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.

NOTE: Biofuel in US diesel consumption was 4.04% of total diesel Btus, and in US gasoline consumption was 7.06% of total gasoline Btus, both after about 15 years of subsidies. Unless a breakthrough takes place regarding producing biofuels from algae, etc. These percentages could not be significantly increased, due to a lack of cropland availability.

 

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

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

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

 

CO2 Emissions

 

The CO2/kWh for the NE grid are shown in table 2.

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

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

The 322 g increases to 347 g, at the wall meter, due to Transmission & Distribution losses.

The 8% upstream is the weighted average of all energy sources of the NE grid and is assumed the same as the US grid.

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.

Source Energy and Primary Energy

 

Using source energy is the proper way to make fuel source comparisons, because source energy factors vary for different fuels.

 

If gas turbines were used for generating the electricity for EVs, and if 0.350 kWh/mile were the energy in the battery for a mix of LDVs, driven by a mix of drivers, about 0.433 kWh/mile would need to be fed into the NE grid, and about 0.891 kWh/mile of primary energy (LNG or NG)) would need to be fed to the gas turbines.

 

It takes about 17% of the combustion energy in a cubic foot of NG for extraction, process and transport, which emits about 17% of the combustion CO2 of a cubic foot of NG.

 

It takes about 43% of the combustion energy in a cubic foot of LNG for extraction, process (including liquefy to LNG, storage, etc.) and transport (including tanker load/transport/unload, storage, re-gasify), which emits about 43% of the combustion CO2 of a cubic foot of LNG.

Here are references for upstream factors:

 

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

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

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

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

Table 3 shows:

- An EV charged with electricity from NG requires 3558 Btu/mile of source energy

- An EV charged with electricity from LNG requires 4345 Btu/mile of source energy

- An IC vehicle fueled with E10 requires 3905 Btu/mile of source energy

- CO2eq of an EV charged with electricity from the NE grid is 151 g/mile.

- The NE grid is clean due to nuclear and hydro and some solar and wind.

- CO2eq of an EV would be 194 and 237 g/mile, if charged with electricity from gas turbines.

That means, on a source energy basis, an efficient EV and an efficient IC vehicle use about the same Btu/mile, IF A PROPER COMPARISON IS MADE.

Almost ALL lay people do not know how to make a proper comparison.

Proponents of EVs, most likely lay people as well, do not know how to make a proper comparison, or, if they do know, are not about inform the general public.

Table 3

NG

NG

LNG

LNG

E10

NE grid

NE grid

Upstream factor

1.1700

1.4286

1.2887

1.080

Mileage, mpg

37

CO2

CO2

Heat content, Btu/gal

112114

Upstream, lb CO2eq/gal

5.847

Combustion, lb CO2eq/gal

18.631

Total, lb CO2eq/gal

24.478

Total, lb CO2eq/million Btu

140.4

171.4

kWh/mi

Btu/mi

kWh/mi

Btu/mi

Btu/mi

g/kWh

g/kWh

Source energy

1.0429

3558

1.2734

4345

3905

Upstream; extract, process, transport

0.1515

517

0.3820

1303

875

Primary energy to gas turbines

0.8913

3041

0.8913

3041

Conversion loss, 50%

0.4457

1521

0.4457

1521

Electricity generation for EVs

0.4457

1521

0.4457

1521

Self-use loss, 3.0%

0.0130

44

0.0130

44

Fed to grid = grid load

0.4327

1476

0.4327

1476

322

348

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.0302

103

0.0302

103

To meters, measured by EPA

0.4025

1373

0.4025

1373

347

374

EV charging loss, 15%

0.0525

179

0.0525

179

In batteries/in gas tank

0.3500

1194

0.3500

1194

3030

398

430

Total, g CO2eq/mile

194

237

300

151

Electricity Cost and Annual Cost

 

A comparison of electricity cost, and annual cost, of nuclear versus three gas sources is shown in table 3.

RE proponents prefer the most expensive option, Russian/Middle East LNG.

The Jones act prohibits shipping LNG between US ports, unless:

 

- The tanker is US-owned

- The tanker is registered in the US

- The crew consists of legal US residents

 

Table 3/Electricity costs

Nuclear

Domestic gas

Louisiana LNG

Russia/Middle East LNG

GWh/y

GWh/y

GWh/y

GWh/y

Generation

31538

31538

31538

31538

kWh

1

1

1

Btu/kWh

3412

3412

3412

Efficiency

0.5

0.5

0.5

Btu/kWh

6824

6824

6824

$/million Btu

3

6

9

Cost, fuel only, $/kWh

0.0205

0.0409

0.0614

Cost, other, $/kWh

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

Cost, $/kWh

4.5

5.05

7.09

9.14

Cost, $million/y

1419

1592

2237

2883

Cost increase, $million/y

 

173

818

1464

 

RE Entities and NG and LNG

 

The following RE entities are agitating in favor of LNG instead of domestic NG from Pennsylvania.

 

- Sierra Club

- Conservation Law Foundation

- Acadia Center

- New Hampshire Office of the Consumer Advocate

- PowerOptions

- RENEW Northeast

- Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

- Cere

 

RE entities are against more pipelines for bringing NG from Pennsylvania, because they know what is good for us. They are adamant about weaning us off fossil fuels, no matter what the cost or inconvenience.

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

 

RE entities are for more Russian/Middle East LNG that costs about 3 times as much as NG from Pennsylvania, and emits about 1.43/1.17 = 22.2% more CO2 than NG from Pennsylvania.

They think choosing to emit more CO2 for decades while “building out wind and solar” would be saving the world.

Existing LNG Plus Future LNG Terminals

 

The existing LNG terminal in Everett, MA, operates at about 25% of capacity.

 

- If the terminal would operate at 50% of capacity (the industry average), on a year-round basis, about 36 tanker loads/y, each holding 67500 metric ton of LNG, would be required.

- If NE LDVs became EVs getting their electricity from LNG, about 119 additional tanker loads/y would be required.

- If all nuclear plants were replaced with LNG-fired gas turbines, about 67 additional tanker loads/y would be required.

- Total additional tanker loads would be {36 - (19 + 17)/2} +119 + 67 = 204, an increase of 204/(19 + 17)/2 = 11.3 times the 2016/2017 average.

Those tanker loads of Russian/Middle East LNG, at 3x the price of domestic NG, would be permanently arriving for several decades, per RE proponent wishes, while the following are being implemented at a capital cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. See table 5.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf

 

NOTE: Tanker loads for heat pumps are not included in above numbers. 

 

 - Wind and solar, plus

- Grid expansion, plus

- TWh-scale storage, plus

- Nuclear to LNG, plus

- LDVs from gasoline to LNG, plus

- Traditional heating from NG, fuel oil, propane, etc., to heat pumps

 

Table 5/Everett LNG Terminal

2016

2017

2016

50% CF

Base Load

Actual

Actual

Jan/Feb

Year-round

LNG source

Trinidad/Other

Trinidad

Trinidad

Trinidad

Trinidad/Other

Storage capacity, billion cubic foot

3.4

Delivery, base load, bcf/y. See URL

265

Delivery, bcf/d

0.726

Delivery, billion Btu/d

726

191

175

320

363

Delivery, billion kWh/d

0.213

0.056

0.051

0.094

0.106

Delivery, TWh/y; 0.213 x 7860/24

69.688

18.365

16.791

30.715

34.844

LNG, million metric ton

4.824

1.271

1.162

2.126

2.412

Tanker loads/y

71

19

17

31

36

Capacity factor

1.000

0.264

0.241

0.441

0.500

.

NE LDVs as EVs

LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y

116.478

LNG, million metric ton

8.062

Tanker loads/y

119

Nuclear to LNG

LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y

64.968

LNG, million metric ton

4.497

Tanker loads/y

67

Total tanker loads/y

186

.

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

Capital Cost of New LNG Receiving Terminals

 

Germany: Construction of a new LNG receiving terminal facility (including receiving, 10 day storage, re-gasifying) could cost about $71 million/million metric ton of LNG.

https://www.vopak.com/german-lng-terminal

 

New England: The capital cost of any new LNG receiving terminal facilities would be about

(8.062 + 4.497)/0.5, capacity factor x $71 million = $1.78 billion, not including the transition to heat pumps.

 

Finding proper sites for the plants likely would be a major challenge.

 

NOTE: The output increase of Everett from about 25% CF to 50% CF would be allocated to normal growth of gas requirements, not to nuclear-to-LNG, and not to gasoline LDVs-to-EVs.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf

 

NOTE: In December, Russia opened the Yamal LNG project. Costing $27 billion, the plant has three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5 million metric of LNG per year, about $1.64 billion/million metric ton of LNG. Almost 96 percent of the Yamal LNG plant’s production has already been contracted.

Everett

New Terminals

Germany

Storage, bcf, gas

3.4

Storage, cm, LNG

220000

Storage, std cm

96277188

135300000

.

Throughput, bcf/y, gas

265

177

Throughput, bcm/y, gas

7.50

5.00

Throughput, million mt/y, LNG

12.202

25.12

8.130

Throughput, cm/h, gas

856616

570776

.

Unloading, cm/h, LNG

14000

Unloading, cm/h, gas

8610000

Filling time, h

15.7

.

LDVs to LNG, million mt

8.062

Nuclear to LNG, million mt

4.497

CF

0.5

$/million mt of LNG

71

$million

1780

576

$/million mt of LNG

71

cf/cm

35.3147

cm of gas/cm of LNG

615

1 LNG metric ton equals

2.439

cubic meter

LNG density, metric ton/cm

0.410

 

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/international/nacei/18057

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

APPENDIX 1

Intent of Foreign Nations

 

Nations with minimal or no domestic gas, such as the EU, Japan, Korea, etc., import high-cost LNG, at about $7 to $9/million Btu. However, the US has an abundance of low-cost natural gas at $2.5 to $3.0/million Btu.

The US does not need to import any gas.

In fact, the US is exporting LNG to east Europe for geo-political reasons.

 

Importing LNG into New England would be extremely unwise. NG from Pennsylvania is preferred because it:

 

- Requires much less source energy than LNG

- Emits much less CO2 than LNG per cubic foot, on a source energy basis

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

- Has 1/3 the cost of Russian/Middle East LNG, which are undesirable /unsafe suppliers 

- Requires much less capital cost than using LNG

- NE already has the highest electric rates in the US. Importing LNG to generate electricity would worsen that condition and be a headwind against NE economic growth.

 

Foreign nations want to move the US towards high-cost energy to make the US relatively less competitive. They want to move the US towards:

 

1) High-cost offshore wind (they have the most expertise in that sector and would get most of the projects)

2) High-cost solar (China has 50% of the world panel market) 

3) Importing LNG (mainly from Russia and the Middle East)

APPENDIX 2

High Levels of Wind and Solar

 

High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having 1) much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus 2) gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very low outputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

 

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

That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times, about 10 days of demand coverage, to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels and no wind.

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

- Any electricity passing through storage would have a 15 to 20 percent loss on an AC-to-AC basis, which would require additional wind and solar generation and storage.

 

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

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

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

Views: 561

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 November 14, 2018 at 9:47pm

Thinklike a mountain,

I saw a Model 3 a few days ago.

I could not believe how small it was.

The average selling price is about $55000, plus shipping, fees, sales tax

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on November 14, 2018 at 8:35am

Government Motors’ Proposed 50-State Standard (once federally saved, GM seeks more aid)

“Perhaps General Motors doesn’t realize that many Americans don’t want to wait an hour to charge their BEV while away from home. Or that they don’t want to pay twice as much for the family car.”

“Who will benefit from this program? Wealthy customers in California and the other ten states who have a Zero Emissions program. Who will lose? Middle-class Americans living in the Midwest who buy SUVs and pickup trucks.”

https://www.masterresource.org/gm/50-state-standard-gm/

Comment by Willem Post on October 16, 2018 at 6:50am

Long islander,

Regarding charging, most people charge at home after having driven about 25 to 50 miles for the day and leave it plugged in all night.

The charging software automatically shut off the power when the battery is full, just like an iPhone.

Comment by Willem Post on October 16, 2018 at 6:45am

Thinklike,

Great comment

I added a section on wind and solar to my article

Comment by Willem Post on October 16, 2018 at 6:44am

Long Islander

Great comment

I added a section to my article.

Comment by Long Islander on October 15, 2018 at 10:06pm

Ever notice some gasoline pumps are fast and others painfully slow, such that filling up might take a full two minutes?

Compare that with the Tesla charging information I just found at Bloomberg dated 10/14/18:

.

Tesla Inc. is beefing up its vehicle charging infrastructure in Hong Kong to help lure back customers after an end to the city’s tax breaks caused sales to plunge.

The two-level, 50-stall Destination Charging facility in Kowloon Bay can provide full charge to a car battery in a few hours, according to a company spokeswoman in Hong Kong. It takes as long as 10 hours at Tesla’s Destination Charging sites to top up juice in the cells, whereas it takes about 90 minutes at Supercharger stations, with the time depending on battery conditions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-15/tesla-boosts-hon...

Comment by Long Islander on October 15, 2018 at 9:44pm

From Kelley Blue Book on 10/15/18 regarding price of the Tesla Model 3:

To reserve a 2018 Tesla Model 3, you -- like the 400,000 capital raisers before you -- need to visit Tesla’s website and plunk down a $1,000 deposit. Problem is, the base Model 3 with the promised Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $36,000 is not being built right now. The Model 3 being sold right now is the rear-drive long-range model, which has the $9,000 long-range battery pack and $5,000 Premium interior upgrades that drive the price to $50,000. When you add the $5,000 Enhanced Autopilot package and $3,000 Full-Self-Driving Capability, you’re looking at nearly $60,000 before any tax credits. At this point, it’s too early to determine a KBB Fair Purchase Price or resale values.

https://www.kbb.com/tesla/model-3/2018/

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on October 15, 2018 at 7:52pm

Thank you for the analysis. I suppose some in fantasy land will tell us wind power will provide all the electricity.....and I thought only sailboats at sea got stuck in windless weather. Next it'll be cars on the Interstate waiting for a breeze.

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