Comments - Gov. Mills asks Congress to focus more on offshore wind, renewable energy and weatherization - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-29T07:52:24Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A179511&xn_auth=noPassivhaus, the Gold Standard…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1793452019-12-28T16:52:46.021ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>Passivhaus, the Gold Standard for Energy Efficiency:</strong></p>
<p>The Passivhaus standard, formulated in Germany, dates from the mid 1980s.</p>
<p>Passivhaus, 2000 ft2, heating demand 10 W/m2 x 186 m2 = 1.86 kW, or 6,348 Btu/h, or <strong>3.2 Btu/ft2/h</strong> at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.</p>
<p>A 2 kW, thermostat-controlled electric heater in the air supply duct <strong>could </strong>be the heating system!</p>
<p><strong>No expensive GSHP system is…</strong></p>
<p><strong>Passivhaus, the Gold Standard for Energy Efficiency:</strong></p>
<p>The Passivhaus standard, formulated in Germany, dates from the mid 1980s.</p>
<p>Passivhaus, 2000 ft2, heating demand 10 W/m2 x 186 m2 = 1.86 kW, or 6,348 Btu/h, or <strong>3.2 Btu/ft2/h</strong> at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.</p>
<p>A 2 kW, thermostat-controlled electric heater in the air supply duct <strong>could </strong>be the heating system!</p>
<p><strong>No expensive GSHP system is required!!</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The house would have an HVAC system, with supply and return ductwork to each room, to supply a minimum of 0.5 ACH to the house for health reasons.</p>
<p>The house would have with an air-to-air heat exchanger to transfer the Btus of the stale exhaust air to fresh incoming air.</p>
<p>The house could have a HEPA filter to filter the incoming air.</p>
<p>The <strong>natural</strong> infiltration likely would be less than 0.1 ACH.</p>
<p>Most other houses require no fan-driven ventilation, because <strong>natural</strong> infiltration is greater than 0.5 ACH.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Typical space heating demands of 2000-ft2, free-standing New England houses are shown in table.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Table/Vermont</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Area</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Heating Demand</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Peak Demand</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Air Leakage</p>
</td>
<td><p>ACH</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>House type</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">ft2</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Btu/ft2/h</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Btu/h</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">ft3/minute</p>
</td>
<td><p>@ 50 pascal</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Typical older house</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>40.0</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>80,000</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2133</p>
</td>
<td><p>8.0, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>“Vermont mix house”</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>32.0</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>64,000</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1600</p>
</td>
<td><p>6.0, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Newer house, last 20 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>24.0</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>48,000</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1066</p>
</td>
<td><p>4.0, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Newer house, last 10 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>18.0</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>36,000</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">666</p>
</td>
<td><p>2.5, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>“HI/HS house”, last 10 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>8.5</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>17,000</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">400</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.5, max</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Passivhaus</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>3.2</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p><span> </span>6,348</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">160</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.6, max</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table> Example in Maine: Energy Cost…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1795442019-12-28T16:41:29.330ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>Example in Maine: Energy Cost Savings No HP and With HP</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Using data from the Emera Maine Heat Pump Pilot Program, conducted by EMI Consulting, it appears the installation of a HP resulted energy cost savings as shown in table 1. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Emera used $3.90/gal in 2014, but the 2018 price is about $2.70/gal, which is used in table 1. See table 2-1 in URL…</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Example in Maine: Energy Cost Savings No HP and With HP</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Using data from the Emera Maine Heat Pump Pilot Program, conducted by EMI Consulting, it appears the installation of a HP resulted energy cost savings as shown in table 1. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Emera used $3.90/gal in 2014, but the 2018 price is about $2.70/gal, which is used in table 1. See table 2-1 in URL</p>
<p><a href="http://www.emeramaine.com/media/41789/emera-maine-heat-pump-pilot-final-report-nov-2014.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.emeramaine.com/media/41789/emera-maine-heat-pump-pilot-final-report-nov-2014.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, if an owner gets a loan from the utility, a typical payment would be about $660/y.</p>
<p>See Appendix of this URL</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims-about-cold-climate-heat-pumps-for">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims-about-cold-climate-heat-pumps-for</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE: With a carbon tax on fuel oil the scale can be tipped in favor of HPs.</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">No HP</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">With HP</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Fuel oil price, $/gallon</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2.70</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2.70</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Electricity price, $/kWh</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">0.16</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Fuel oil, gal/y</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">660</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">421</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Fuel oil displaced by HP, gal/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">239</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Fuel oil cost, $/y</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>1782</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>1137</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Electricity consumed, kWh/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2387</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Electricity cost, $/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>382</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Total energy cost, $/y</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>1782</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>1519</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Energy cost saving, $/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">263</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Utility loan, $/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>660</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Amortize back-up system, $/y*</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">792</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">792</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Total cost, $/y</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>2574</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>2971</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>LOSS, $/y</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><strong>397</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Not Counted</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Maintenance contract, HP, no parts, $/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">150</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Outage calls, HP, no parts, $/call</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">150</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Maintenance contract, back-up system, no parts, $/y</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">250</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">250</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Outage calls, back-up system, no parts, $/call</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">150</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">150</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>* Amortize $10,000 back-up system at 5% for 20 y</p> http://www.windtaskforce.org/…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1790912019-12-28T16:37:55.786ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine</a></p>
<p></p>
<p class="style846"><b><span>Burlington Electric Department of Vermont Severely Curtailed Its Heat Pump Program</span></b></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><b><span>According to BED, Efficiency Vermont's estimated savings…</span></b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine</a></p>
<p></p>
<p class="style846"><b><span>Burlington Electric Department of Vermont Severely Curtailed Its Heat Pump Program</span></b></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><b><span>According to BED, Efficiency Vermont's estimated savings were grossly exaggerated</span></b><span>. "BED is scaling back its 2018 – 2020 projections of HPs installed in the City of Burlington, VT, due to the results of a 2017 VT DPS evaluation report. See URL.</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span><a href="https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf">https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>The VT-DPS evaluation report indicates:</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><strong>- The owners of the surveyed HPs had average savings of about $200/heat pump per year</strong></p>
<p class="style846"><span><strong>- The owners displaced, on average, only about 34% of their annual fuel oil, i.e., the other 66% of fuel oil was supplied by the traditional heating system.</strong></span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>The VT-DPS report did not mention other HP financial impacts on owners, such as:</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>- Annual loan payments to utilities, such as GMP. See table 1 and Appendix for details.</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>- Annual maintenance contract fees, at about $150 per year, no parts</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>- Cost for unscheduled outages, at about $150 per call, no parts</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>- Amortizing the $5000 heat pump at 5% for 15 years requiring annual payments of $474 per year</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>- Amortizing the $10000 traditional back-up system a 5% for 20 years requiring annual payments of $792 per year</span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>Instead of installing hundreds of HPs during the 2019, 2020, 2021 period, BED is now <b>anticipating, i.e., making money available in its budget,</b> to provide incentives for <b>no more than 15 HPs during that period.</b></span></p>
<p class="style846"><span> </span></p>
<p class="style846"><span>Those few HPs likely would be in <b>pre-selected</b>, highly insulated/highly sealed houses to ensure 85 to 100 percent of displacement of fuel oil. Google Burlington Electric 2018 Tier 3 Plan, which BED is required to submit the VT-Public Utilities Commission every three years. The Plan describes the BED HP intentions for that period.</span></p>
<p class="style846"><b><span>NOTE:</span></b> <span>The BED intentions barely were mentioned by the VT mass media, because it does not bode well for the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan goal of 35000 HPs by 2025. That goal was based not on any analysis, but likely on a number picked out of a hat by bureaucrats. See Appendix.</span></p>
<p></p> Socialism is about Democrat/P…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1794592019-12-28T16:32:01.585ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Socialism is about Democrat/Progressive government, centralized, MONOPOLISTIC, command and control of the wheezing, near-zero, real-growth, Vermont economy.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dem/Progs have demonstrated their ineptitude by EXPENSIVELY taking control of Healthcare and Education and Energy, by wrestling them away from LOCAL control.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Since 2000, Dem/Progs promoted the spending of $3 billion on energy projects, including the money-pit called Efficiency Vermont, but have only…</p>
<p>Socialism is about Democrat/Progressive government, centralized, MONOPOLISTIC, command and control of the wheezing, near-zero, real-growth, Vermont economy.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dem/Progs have demonstrated their ineptitude by EXPENSIVELY taking control of Healthcare and Education and Energy, by wrestling them away from LOCAL control.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Since 2000, Dem/Progs promoted the spending of $3 billion on energy projects, including the money-pit called Efficiency Vermont, but have only INCREASING CO2 to show for it.<br/>Talking about ineptitude!!</p>
<p></p>
<p>But it is not enough. They want more and more money, this time to “save the world, fight climate change”</p>
<p></p>
<p>Let us face it, Vermont is just a fly on an elephant’s butt.<br/>Dem/Progs want to EXPENSIVELY turn the fly into a flea!!</p>
<p></p>
<p>They want to inflict their ineptitude on the ENTIRE Vermont Economy.<br/>This disaster-in-the-making has to be stopped at the ballot box before it is too late.<br/>They are brainwashing children in public schools and colleges with various dogmas that say black is white,</p>
<p></p>
<p>That was done in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, N. Korea, etc., with MARVELOUS results; they all became and STILL ARE basket cases.</p> Comments on Below Table
http:…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1795422019-12-28T16:21:46.568ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>Comments on Below Table</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Indirect subsidies </strong>are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.</p>
<p><strong>Direct subsidies </strong>are due…</p>
<p><strong>Comments on Below Table</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Indirect subsidies </strong>are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.</p>
<p><strong>Direct subsidies </strong>are due to up front grants, waiving of state sales taxes, and/or local property (municipal and school) taxes. See URL.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>An owner of ridgeline wind would have to sell his output at 18.8 c/kWh, if the owner were not getting the benefits of cost shifting and upfront cash grants and subsidies.</p>
<p>That owner could sell his output at 16.4 c/kWh, if his costs were reduced due to cost shifting.</p>
<p>He could sell his output at 9 c/kWh, if on top of the cost shifting he also received various subsidies. The same rationale holds for solar. See table.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>In NE construction costs of ridgeline wind and offshore wind are high/MW, and the capacity factor of wind is about 0.285 and of solar about 0.14. Thus, NE wind and solar have high prices/MWh. See table.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In US areas, such as the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle and Southwest, with much lower construction costs/MW and much better sun and wind conditions than New England, wind and solar electricity prices/MWh are less.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those lower prices often are mentioned, without mentioning other factors, by the pro-RE media and financial consultants, such as Bloomberg, etc., which surely deceives the lay public</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Future electricity cost/MWh, due to the planned build-out of NE offshore wind added to the planned build-out of NE onshore wind, likely would not significantly change, because of the high costs of grid extensions and upgrades to connect the wind plants and to provide significantly increased connections to the New York and Canadian grids.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE: </strong>For the past 20 years, Germany and Denmark have been increasing their connections to nearby grids, because of their increased wind and solar.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The subsidy percentages in below table are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values for 2018 are represented in below table.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>NE Wind/Solar</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">NE Wind</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>%</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>NE Solar</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Ridgeline</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Large-scale</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility</p>
</td>
<td><p>No direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>No cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">18.8</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>100</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>23.5</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">100</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2.4</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>13</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>2.1</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility</p>
</td>
<td><p>No direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>With cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">16.4</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>87</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>21.4</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">91</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less subsidy, wind</p>
</td>
<td><p>45% of 16.4</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">7.4</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">39</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less subsidy, solar</p>
</td>
<td><p>45% of 21.4</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9.6</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">41</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility*</p>
</td>
<td><p>With direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>With cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9.0</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>48</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>11.8</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">50</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>* Owner prices to utilities are based on recent 20-year electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in New England.</strong></p>
<p><strong>These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without the direct and indirect subsidies and the cost shifting.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England.</strong></p>
<p><strong>The prices, c/MWh, in those areas are lower than New England.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Wind and Solar Subsidies Provide a Bonanza for Wall Street</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar-the-higher-the-electric-rates" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar-the-higher-the-electric-rates</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>This URL shows wind and solar prices per kWh would be at least 50% higher without direct and indirect subsidies. They would be even higher, if the costs of other items were properly allocated to the owners of wind and solar projects, instead of shifted elsewhere. See below section High Levels of Wind and Solar Require Energy Storage.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powerpack-and-powerwall-systems">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powerpack-and-powerwall-systems</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plants-require-large-scale-battery-systems" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plants-require-large-scale-battery-systems</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.usu.edu/ipe/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/UnseenWindFull.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usu.edu/ipe/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/UnseenWindFull.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This URL shows about 2/3 of the financial value of a wind project is due to <strong>direct and indirect </strong>subsidies, and the other 1/3 is due to electricity sales.</p>
<p><a href="http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf">http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>- Indirect </strong>subsidies are due to federal and state tax rebates due to loan interest deductions from taxable income, and federal and state MARCS depreciation deductions from taxable income.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>- Direct </strong>subsidies are up-front federal and state cash grants, the partial waiving of state sales taxes, the partial waiving of local property, municipal and school taxes. See URLs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any owner, foreign or domestic, of a wind and/or solar project, looking to shelter taxable income from their other US businesses, is allowed to depreciate in 6 years almost the entire cost of a wind and solar project under the IRS scheme called Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, MARCS. The normal period for other forms of utility depreciation is about 20 years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Then, with help of Wall Street financial wizardry from financial tax shelter advisers, such as BNEF*, JPMorgan, Lazard, etc., the owner sells the project to a new owner who is allowed to depreciate, according to MARCS, almost his entire cost all over again. Over the past 20 years, there now are many thousands of owners of RE projects who are cashing in on that bonanza.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Loss of Federal and State Tax Revenues</strong>: The loss of tax revenues to federal and state governments due to MARCS was estimated by the IRS at $266 billion for the 5y period of 2017 - 2021, or about $53.2 billion/y.</p>
<p>The IRS is required to annually provide a 5y-running estimate to Congress, by law.</p>
<p>The next report would be for the 2018 - 2022 period</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The <strong>indirect</strong> largesse of about $53.2 billion/y, mostly for wind and solar plants^ that produce expensive, variable/intermittent electricity, <strong>does not show up in electric rates</strong>. It likely is added to federal and state debts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most of the <strong>direct </strong>federal subsidies to all energy projects of about $25 billion/y also <strong>do not show up in electric rates</strong>. They likely were also added to the federal debt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most of the <strong>direct </strong>state subsidies to RE projects likely were added to state debts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The additional costs of state-mandated RPS requirements likely were added to the utility rate base for electric rates.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>* BNEF is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, owned by the pro-RE former Mayor Bloomberg of New York, which provides financial services to the wealthy of the world, including providing them with tax avoidance schemes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>^ In New England, wind is near zero for about 30% of the hours of the year, and solar is minimal or zero for about 70% of the hours of the year. Often these hours coincide for multi-day periods, which happen at random throughout the year, per ISO-NE real-time, minute-by-minute generation data posted on its website. Where would the electricity come from during these hours; $multi-billion battery storage, insufficient capacity hydro storage?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68227.pdf">https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68227.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tax-equity-investors-break-their-silence-on-tax-bill#gs.GDbC2YIS">https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tax-equity-investors-break-their-silence-on-tax-bill#gs.GDbC2YIS</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Warren Buffett Quote:</strong> "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." </p>
<p><a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment" target="_blank">https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment</a></p> What an absolute drag.. ruini…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-12-28:4401701:Comment:1793432019-12-28T15:49:55.654ZDonna Amrita Davidgehttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DonnaAmritaDavidge
What an absolute drag.. ruining our state how sad is that
What an absolute drag.. ruining our state how sad is that