VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years, per Energy Action Network annual report. See URLs.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

  

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK

 

“Meeting Paris”: In 2019, EAN made estimates of what it would take to “meet Paris”, i.e., reduce CO2 from 9.76 million metric ton, at end 2016, to 7.46 MMt, at end 2025, or 2.281 MMt.

 

About 0.405 MMt from 90,000 electric vehicles, EVs

About 0.370 MMt from 90,000 air source heat pumps, ASHPs. See Note and pages 3, 4 and 5 of URL

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

All of Europe (550 million people, excl. Russia) is not “meeting Paris”, and neither are China (1.4 billion people), India (1.4 billion people), etc.

 

Capital Cost to “Meet Paris”: The measures are a multi-billion-dollar wish list of EAN members with a cost exceeding $14.626 billion during 2020 – 2025, about $2.925 billion/y. 

 

Amortizing the cost of the mostly short-life assets (EVs, ASHPs, battery storage systems, etc.), at 3.5% over 15 years, would require payments of $1,255 billion/y, more than offsetting the EAN energy cost savings of 800/5 = $160 million/y, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Existing spending is about $210 million/y, including Efficiency Vermont. 

The spending to “meet Paris” during 2020 - 2025 would be about 14 times greater.

 

EAN Savings and Capital Cost Estimate: The EAN report states undefined energy cost savings. It lacks a capital cost estimate to “meet Paris”.

 

Why does EAN not provide the spreadsheet that calculated these energy cost savings, as part of its glossy report?

Why does EAN not provide a capital cost estimate of outlays by: 1) Vermonters, 2) the federal government, 3) state government, and 4) local governments. for each year of the 2020 – 2025 period?

 

EAN Members Eager to “Meet Paris”: EAN eagerly urged the Vermont legislature to “meet Paris” a few years ago, because that would be good for: 1) RE businesses of members, and 2) would display proper “virtue signaling”.

However, no entity, including EAN, made a capital cost estimate of what would be required to “meet Paris” at that time, or since.

 

EAN Members Eager for GWSA and “Fortress Vermont”: EAN is eagerly urging the Vermont Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions (Spending) Act. That act would turn aspirational goals of the CEP into mandated goals.

 

The capital cost of GWSA would dwarf “meeting Paris”. That would be sweet music for EAN members. They would have expanding, heavily subsidized businesses and job security for decades at everyone else’s expense, despite knowing their RE scam would not be making one iota of difference regarding Vermont’s climate and the world climate.

 

NOTE:

- The membership of EAN includes ten prominent members of Vermont Department of Public Service, VT-DPS: June Tierney, Riley Allen, Ed McNamara, TJ Poore, Anne Margolis, Andrew Perchlik, Maria Fischer, Phillip Picotte, Ed Delhagen, Kelly Launder.

- June Tierney is the Commissioner.

- Andrew Perchlik is on loan to the Legislature to shepherd the GWSA and $1.2 billion “Fortress Vermont” bills to ensure they contain all the bennies for EAN members.

- Perchlik manages the Clean Energy Development Fund that donates taxpayer money to renewable energy programs.

- No wonder VT-DPS resorts to artificial/political CO2 calculations regarding Vermont’s electrical sector, and EV and ASHP programs.

https://www.eanvt.org/about/people/network-members/

 

Table 1 is based on data from the EAN report

 

Table 1/Meet Paris	Existing	Addition	Total	CO2 reduction	CO2 Reduction
Year	2019		2025	2025	2025
				million Mt	%
EVs/plug-in hybrids	3,541	90,000	93,541	0.405
Fleet mileage increase				0.187
Solo driving increase				0.172
Total				0.764	33.5
ASHPs, space heat	17,717	90,000	107,717	0.370
Adv. wood. heat	21,421	25,000	46,421	0.258
Building retrofits	27,186	90,000	117,186	0.160
ASHPs, DHW	11,687	90,000	101,687	0.106
Total				0.894	39.2
Electricity; in-state	MWh	MWh	MWh
Wind	161,198	250,000	411,198
Solar	502,949	700,000	1,202,949
Hydro	513,183	50,000	563,183
Total	1,177,330	1,000,000	2,177,330	0.373	16.4
Miscellaneous				0.250	11.0
Total				2.281	100.0

 

Table 2 shows the turnkey capital cost of EAN measures to “meet Paris”, based on source energy and, real-world values for CO2/kWh, per ISO-NE, instead of the artificial/political values concocted by VT-DPS.

 

Table 2/ Costs	EVs		ASHPs	Adv. Wood Heat		Wind/Solar/Storage	Hydro	Total
	$billion		$billion	$billion		$billion	$billion	$billion
EVs	7.606	Deep retrofits	2.700		Wind	0.095
Chargers	0.285	ASHPs, space	0.410		Solar	0.570
		ASHP, DHW	0.360		Grid	0.100
					Storage	0.900
	7.891		3.470	0.250		1.665	0.860	14.626
							Annual	2.925

 

NOTE:

Source energy, SE, is from mines, wells and forests, etc.

Primary energy, PE, is finished fuel/energy fed to power plants

Upstream = SE – PE

SE basis includes Upstream

PE basis excludes Upstream

Wall meter = WM

Vehicle meter = VM

Metric ton = Mt = 2204.62 lb

Wall socket basis or wall meter basis = WM basis

Air source heat pump = ASHP

Electric vehicle = EV

New England = NE

Power purchase agreements = PPAs

New England grid operator = ISO-NE

 

GRID UPGRADES, PEAK-SMOOTHING, LOAD-SHIFTING, STORAGE

 

Vermont’s maximum grid load is about 1100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of heat pumps and EVs.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Major distribution and high-voltage grid upgrades, peak-smoothing and load-shifting and electricity storage systems (battery, etc.) would be required, if, in the future:

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus EVs would plug in, demanding 200,000 x 9 kW; see table 2 = 1,800 MW, most of them recharging for 2 - 4 hours, some of them up to 10 hours, for next day driving.

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered gas/diesel vehicles was 547,000 in 2019

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

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus heat pumps would be operating, demanding 200,000 x 2.8 kW = 560 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings.  Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 such heat pumps. See URL

https://www.thermospace.com/ductless_split/ymgi/inverter-16-seer-2-...

 

CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

 

There are 2 methods of comparing the CO2 emissions of EVs vs gasoline vehicles:

 

1) A simplified energy comparison, which makes EVs appear favorable compared to gasoline vehicles. EAN used the simplified method. It is easily understood by non-technical, lay people, which leads to widespread misunderstanding of reality.

 

2) A more-inclusive comparison shows, EV CO2 reduction compared to efficient gasoline vehicles is minimal, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. This article uses the more-inclusive method, which is vastly more realistic.

 

Simplified Method

 

In addition to the simplified method, EAN also inflated CO2 reduction of EVs by cherry-picking parameters for evaluation to make EVs appear much better than gasoline vehicles, such as:

 

1) Using an excessive miles/y; EVs travel significantly less miles per year than gasoline vehicles. See notes

 

2) Using a low 22.7 mpg, which equals the “VT LDV mix” that includes all sizes of LDVs. See URL, page 2.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

3) Omitting: 1) the upstream CO2 of gasoline and electricity, 2) the embodied CO2 of the vehicle body, 3) the embodied CO2 of the battery.

 

4) Comparing the compact EV using only 0.317 kWh/mile, whereas the “VT LDV mix”, converted to EVs, would use about 0.400 kWh/mile.

 

5) Using a low value of 34 g CO2/kWh for the NE grid electricity, as concocted by the VT-DPs, whereas the real-world NE grid value is about 304 g/kWh, as measured at a wall meter.

 

EAN prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

One EAN measure is adding 90,000 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/EV/y, based on the above EAN “parameters”. Table 3 shows the likely parameters used by EAN. See detailed analysis in Appendix 1.

 

Table 3/CO2	EAN		EAN
	VT LDV mix		Compact SUV
miles/y	13200	miles/y	13200
mpg	22.7	kWh/mile	0.317
gal/y	581	kWh/y	4158
CO2, WM basis, lb/gal	17.612	CO2, WM basis, g/kWh	34
CO2, Mt/y	4.642	Mt/y	0.142
CO2 reduction, Mt/y, per EV			4.500

 

More-Inclusive Method

 

Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. Such evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient light-duty vehicles, LDVs, using gasoline or diesel.

 

As future electric grid CO2 emissions, g CO2/kWh, decrease more and more (a decades-long process), EVs would reduce CO2 emissions more and more, compared with LDVs, using gasoline and diesel.

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

 

Engineers, including at Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles must be based on:

 

1) Lifetime/A-to-Z basis such as the 105,600 miles for 10 years used in this article. Usually, batteries are manufacturer-warranted for 8 years. Very few people would replace an old battery with an expensive, new battery in a 10-y-old EV, i.e., the EV likely would be scrapped. See Notes.

 

2) CO2 of a gallon of gasoline = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of combustion energy, 17.612 lb/gal = 23.371 lb/gal. EAN ignored upstream CO2

 

3) CO2 of NE grid, 304 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh.

See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

4) CO2 embodied energy in the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied CO2

 

5) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg.

Typically, EVs replace vehicles that have 30 mpg or better. 

 

6) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions, as show in the above three examples.

 

The more-inclusive method would yield a CO2 reduction of only 3.035 Mt/EV/y, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis, which would include: 1) the CO2 of upstream energy, and 2) the CO2 embedded in the vehicle, 3) a realistic g CO2/kWh for EV electricity. See table 6 and 7.

 

EAN would need 4.5/3.035 x 90,000 = 133,443 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMT/y by 2025, if the VT LDV mix,

22.7-mpg, were used for comparison. See tables 6 and 7

 

EAN would need 4.5/1.705 x 90,000 = 237,537 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMt/y by 2025, if a Subaru Outback, 30-mpg, were used for comparison.

 

Whether 90,000 or 237,537, such increases in EVs, by end 2025, are a total fantasy, because, the capital cost would be at least $10.0 BILLION, at $40,000/EV, which over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters do not have to pay for:

 

1) EVs

2) Chargers at home and on the road

3) Grid expansion/augmentation, to connect wind and solar, and to serve the greater demand EVs and heat pumps

4) Additional electricity generation to serve EVs and heat pumps

5) Utility-scale battery storage in case of wind and solar build-outs, as proposed by EAN “to meet Paris”

 

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

NOTE: On-the-road data from privately owned EVs was analyzed: 158,468,000 miles from 21,600 EVs

EVs travel about 10,000 miles/y

See page 17 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss171_carlson_...

 

NOTE: Gasoline vehicles travel about 11,467 miles/y

See image in URL

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10309

 

NOTE: The EAN “parameters” likely were aimed to deceive non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters to obtain favorable RE-subsidy legislation, such as the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA.

 

- GWSA is designed to subsidize the RE companies of EAN members for decades, at everyone else’s expense. 

The members of the GWSA Committee of 23 are the same or similar people, who presided over 20 years of government energy programs, costing about $2 billion, which had the net result of increasing Vermont’s CO2.

 

- Vermonters would be much better served with increased energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.

See URLs for much more information.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

More-Inclusive Method: CO2 Emission Comparison of Four Vehicles; Lifetime/A-to-Z Basis

 

Base Vehicle:

 

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with three other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging loss

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.06, loss factor* = 0.317 mile/kWh, which includes:

 

1) Charging loss,

2) Self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and

3) Losses due to NE road/climate conditions,

4) Losses due to idle time, such as parked in a garage, or at an airport.

 

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

 

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, compact SUV, 56 mpg

Subaru Outback, medium SUV, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV mix”, a mix of all LDV sizes, 22.7 mpg

 

Comments on table 4:

 

Table 6 shows a CO2 comparison of the 5 vehicles.

 

NOTE:

Most EV owners are higher-income eco-people. About 50% also own PV systems. They received subsidies for PV systems and EVs.

Most people who buy EVs, already drive high-mileage vehicles., i.e., greater than 30 mpg. They just want to look extra green.

 

Table 4/Mfr.	Make	Size	Type	MPG	Mt CO2/y vs BASE
Nissan; BASE	Leaf	Compact SUV	EV		0.000
Toyota	Prius, L Eco	Compact car	Hybrid	56.0	0.052
Subaru	Outback	Medium SUV	Gasoline	30.0	1.705
Any mfr.		VT LDV mix	Gasoline	22.7	3.035

 

Comments on table 5:

 

Table 5 shows, a CO2 comparison of EVs versus efficient gasoline vehicles, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis.

 

Table 5 shows, increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of Vermont’s light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

Table 5/CO2; Lifetime/A-to-Z basis	Nissan	Toyota	Subaru	Any mfr.
	Leaf S Plus	Prius L Eco	Outback
	Comp. SUV	Comp. car	Med. SUV	VT LDV mix
Type	EV	Hybrid	Gasoline	Gasoline
Plug-in	yes	no	no	no
Battery, kWh	62	0.75	no	no
Travel, miles/10 years	105600	105600	105600	105600
EPA combined, WM basis, mpg		56	30	22.7
EPA combined, wall meter basis, kWh/mile	0.317
NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh	304
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal		17.612	17.612	17.612
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal		5.759	5.759	5.759
E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal		23.371	23.371	23.371
.
CO2	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted		15.064	28.120	37.163
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport		4.926	9.195	12.152
Electricity, wall meter basis, Mt/10 years	10.167
Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	5.700	5.700	5.700	7.000
Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	10.100	0.800
Total CO2, Mt/10 years	25.967	26.490	43.015	56.315
		Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y
CO2 reduction vs Base, Mt/y		0.052	1.705	3.035

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

 

NOTE: It should be abundantly clear why EAN engineers chose to:

- Consider only the combustion CO2 of the fuel and electricity, plus use flawed values, plus use unmatched vehicles (apples to oranges), because they knew that approach would have large CO2 reduction/EV, compared to gasoline vehicles, which would fit the RE narrative of the EV hyping strategy.

 

- Shy away from lifetime analysis, that includes upstream CO2, combustion CO2 and embodied CO2, plus uses realistic values, plus uses matched vehicles (apples to apples), because that approach would have low CO2 reduction/EV, compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, which would not fit the RE narrative of the EV hyping strategy.

Capital Cost

 

EAN claimed a CO2 reduction of 4.500 Mt/y per EV, PE basis

A more realistic CO2 reduction would be only 1.705 Mt/y, SE basis, lifetime analysis

EAN would have needed 4.50/1.705 x 90000 = 237,537 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 MMt by end 2025

 

Cost for EVs; about 237,537 x $40000/small EV = $9.5 billion

Cost for private and public chargers; about 237,537 x $1500 = $0.356 billion

Total = 9.500 + 0.356 = $9.856 billion

 

EVs on the Road in Vermont  

 

- In table 3, adjusted kWh/mile includes 1) charging loss, about 15% of WM, 2) self-use loss, such as heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport.

- MSRP excludes: delivery, dealer prep, documents, sales tax, and federal/state subsidies.

- The federal EV subsidy is disappearing

- Minimum MSRPs are for low-end models, no-extras

- Tesla MSRPs are for long range, AWD models, no extras

- In house, Level 2 charger (220 V), about $1500 - $2000 installed, is required in most Vermont houses

- My cut-off is 200 miles, as being "VT-adequate" to drive on snowy, icy, hilly, pothole, muddy, rutted roads during cold winters, which could reduce range by up to 40%, during cold days.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

https://www.driveelectricvt.com/Media/Default/docs/fact-sheet-drive...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

 

Table 5/Vermont EVs		On the road	Drive	2020 Range	kWh/mile	Adj. kWh/mile	MSRP*
				Max	Per EPA	5.50%	$
Nissan Leaf S Plus	Small SUV	573	FrWD	226	0.3009	0.3174	38200
Chevy Bolt	Small SUV	270	FrWD	259	0.2856	0.3013	36620
Tesla Model 3	Small sedan	243	AWD	322	0.2785	0.2938	48990
Tesla Model Y	Small SUV		AWD	316	0.2785	0.2938	52990
Tesla Model S	Full-size sedan	130	AWD	402	0.2880	0.3038	74990
Tesla Model X	Med-size SUV	66	AWD	351	0.3510	0.3703	79990
Hyunda Kona	Small SUV	26	FrWD	258	0.2808	0.2962	37190
Kia Niro	Small SUV		FrWD	239	0.3008	0.3173	38500

 

Determining the Loss Factor

 

Due to the above four losses, the total kWh drawn via a WM to charge the battery is about 25 to 30 percent greater than the total of battery storage changes over, say one year, as determined from long-term driving tests of a Tesla Model 3 in California, and a Model S in upstate NY

 

The loss factor is higher in NY and NE than in CA

The Tesla Model 3 and Model S are known to be more efficient than other EVs.

The loss factors of equivalent EVs, not as efficient as Teslas, driven in NE, likely would be about 1.055

The factor 1.055 was used in this article. See URL

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

 

Table 6/Loss	WM	Loss factor	Charge factor	VM	WM/VM
Model S; Upstate NY	kWh AC			kWh DC	kWh AC/kWh DC
Charge	100.00		0.85	85.00
Misc. losses	5.12	1.0512	0.85	4.35
Charge + Misc. losses	105.12			80.65	1.3034
Model 3; California
Charge	75.00		0.85	63.75
Misc. losses	2.50	1.0333	0.85	2.13
Charge + Misc. losses	77.50			61.62	1.2578

 

ANECDOTAL INFORMATION REGARDING EVs

 

Eco-conscious persons, who would buy EVs, likely already drive higher-mileage gasoline vehicles. Just ask them what they drove before buying an EV.

 

1) A friend, who owns a community supported agriculture company, CSA, traded her 54-mpg Prius for a $45000 EV Bolt, which, after federal, state, GMP, and dealer subsidies, cost her $26000!! I was astounded.

There is no free lunch ever. One person’s subsidy, becomes another person’s cost, per Economics 101

She makes delivery runs to various stores that sell her products.

She found the Bolt has much less useful storage space than the Prius.

She found the Bolt has about 35 to 40% less range in winter than in summer.

She had not counted on that range loss, and no one had told her.

She said, if it had not been for all the incentives (paid for by other Vermonters) she would have never done it

She can write it off in 3 years, which significantly reduces her federal and state income taxes (other Vermonters have to pay more)

 

2) Another friend, a landscaper, has a Prius plug-in. 

She has short travels to clients.

Her tools, etc., are loaded in the vehicle

She hardly ever buys gas, except when it gets colder in fall, winter, spring

Her 25-mile electric range becomes about 15 miles on colder days.

 

3) The EPA range of an EV can only be obtained, if the car is driven on a level road, at a steady 55 mph, with only the driver. 

I observed a video of a Tesla Model S going 400 miles, at 55 mph, on a level 4-lane divided highway in Norway. 

It was an experiment by a professional driver, who had borrowed the car. 

Conditions were ideal, not too hot, not too cold.

The test was stopped with 3% left in the battery, per owner requirement.

I used to live near Oslo, Norway and know that road very well.

Add a passenger, less range; hilly terrain, less range; cold weather, less range; add some cargo, plus a passenger, plus a hilly road, on a cold day and range reduction is about 35 to 40%.

These are real-world facts in Vermont, but very few people are made aware of them.

People who bought EVs find drawbacks later, tell their friends, and EV sales do not “take off”, no matter how much subsidies.

Some higher-income people, use a heavily subsidized EV for commuting, shopping, etc., and find it quite adequate.

They usually have gasoline vehicles as well.

REQUIRED HYDRO PLANT CAPACITY, IF ADDED EVs USED ONLY HYDRO POWER

This is a “what if” exercise to provide some reality regarding the electricity required for the added EVs. What if hydro plants were to provide the electricity for the added EVs?

 

The Vermont LDV mix of gasoline vehicles consists of small, medium and large vehicles. The larger, the heavier the vehicle, the greater the kWh/mile. Almost all EVs currently marketed and bought are smaller vehicles, which require about 0.317 kWh/mile, WM basis; this includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use loss due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport.

 

At end 2025, about 190,140 EVs would be added and in operation to reduce 405,000 Mt of CO2/y, per above lifetime analysis. That large number of EVs likely would replace most of the smaller gasoline vehicles in the LDV mix.

 

Assuming their average requirement is 0.317 kWh/mile, their electricity consumption would be 190,140 EVs x 13200 miles/y x 0.317 kWh/mile x 1.075 (T&D loss) = 855,293 MWh/y, fed to grid basis.

 

One of the larger hydro plants is in Wilder, West Lebanon, NH. The Wilder Dam is 59 ft high. The water pool extends 45 miles from the dam. The reservoir usable capacity is 13,350 acre-ft with a 5-ft drawdown, or 16.47 million m3. The annual average production is about 153,738 MWh. See page 16 of URL

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&...

 

The added EVs would require new hydro plants with a capacity of about 855,293/153,738 x 41 MW = 5.6 Wilder Dams just for meeting Paris!! Bonjour

 

That would far exceed the existing the total hydro plant capacity in Vermont

If Vermont were to have about 400,000 EVs at some future date, even greater hydro plant capacity would be required

 

In NE, in spring, hydro plant monthly output is about two times the monthly output during summer, i.e., hydro reservoirs would be needed to ensure steady output throughout the year.

 

Also, miles-travelled per day during winter is about 15% less than during summer, i.e., any hydro plants would need to provide electricity to cover miles-travelled during summer.

 

Table 7/Wilder Dam
Water pool	miles	45
Drawdown	ft	5
Usable volume	acre-ft	13,350
	m^3/acre-ft	1233.48
Usable volume	m^3	16,466,958
Avg. production, 1982 - 2011	MWh/y	153,738
	h/y	8766
Average plant output	MW	17.54
Plant rated capacity	MW	41
CF		0.428

WIND, SOLAR and HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have lower CO2/kWh.

 

That approach would take decades, plus:

 

1) Variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, electricity from large-scale wind would cost about 9 c/kWh

2) New large-scale solar about 11 c/kWh, and from residential net-metered solar about 21.813 c/kWh.

3) The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

NOTE: Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-additional-hydro-energy-from-hydro-quebec

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2 in 2018

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants to calculate CO2/kWh; primary energy basis.

Page 13 of URL shows 658 lb CO2/MWh, or 658 x 454/1000 = 299 g/kWh; PE basis

 

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e... 

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh; source energy basis.

Fed to wall meter becomes 323 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

Imports were 17% of total electricity fed to the NE grid.

We assume imports has zero g CO2/kWh, because we have no other data.

Adjusted for imports 323/1.17 = 276 g/kWh, PE basis

Adjusted for imports 356/1.17 = 304 g/kWh, SE basis

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018	Grid CO2	Grid CO2
	PE basis	SE basis
	g/kWh	g/kWh
Source energy
Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%
Primary energy = Fed to power plants
Conversion loss
Gross generation
Plant self-use loss
Net generation = Fed to grid	299	329
T&D loss, 7.5%
Fed to wall meters	323	356
Fed to wall meters, adjusted for imports	276	304

 

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2 in 2018

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via a wall socket, would have the NE electricity mix; CO2 of 276 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Fed to Vermont High Voltage Grid: Electricity fed by generators (in-state and out-of-state) into the Vermont high voltage grid is about 6 billion kWh/y

 

Consumption via Wall Sockets: Consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075, T&D losses) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

 

Solar: Almost all Standard-Offer solar and Utility solar is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

Almost all Net-Metered solar, such as rooftop solar, is fed into distribution grids.

 

Wind: The output of all in-state wind plants is fed into high voltage grids

 

McNeal, Ryegate: The output of both plants is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

The CO2 of both plants is not counted, because it is from burning trees, which has been ordained by the EPA to be “renewable”.

 

Hydro Plants: Almost all in-state hydro plant output is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

ISO-NE Values in Table 1A, at outlet: Vermont CO2 would be about 5.55 billion kWh x 276 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,530,426 Mt/y, PE basis, in 2018

 

VT-DPS Using PPAs, at outlet: CO2 of the “PPA Vermont electricity mix” yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1530426 x 276 = 34 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See page 18 of Agency of Natural Resources URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018.

The rapid GHG reduction from 2015 to 2018 is miraculous.

It may have to do with GMP buying more nuclear and hydro. See table F

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

APPENDIX 3

GMP and VT-DPS Reduce CO2

No CO2 is reduced by GMP signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

 

It is unscientific, chicanery for:

 

1) VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs

2) EAN to use those artificial numbers to evaluate the CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis. See URL page 18

 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

Table B/Grid CO2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
VT-DPS, PE basis
Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt	1.09	0.43	1.00	0.81	0.49	0.19
Total CO2, all sectors	8.65	9.70	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
CO2, g CO2/kWh, Fed to grid basis		72	167	135	82	32
CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis		78	180	146	88	34
ISO-NE, PE basis
NE generation, fed to grid, GWh		110,199	107,916	105,570	102,562	103,740
NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, Fed to grid basis		726	747	710	682	658
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, Fed to grid basis		330	339	322	310	299
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis		357	366	348	335	323

* Table CO2 values not adjusted for imports

 

APPENDIX 4   

Vermont Electricity Prices

Table C last column, shows the c/kWh for electricity from wind. solar, hydro, etc., paid to owners of Standard Offer and Net-metered systems; those prices would be much higher without cost shifting and subsidies, paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table C/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis	2000	2000 – 2018	2018	2018
	Existing	New added	Total	SO/NM
Energy Source	MWh	MWh	MWh	c/kWh
Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013	491,878	21,305	513,183	13.0
Solar, behind and before the meter; per ISO-NE		502,949	502,949	21.8
Ryegate, wood, per US-EIA	166,902		166,902	10.0
McNeil, wood, per US-EIA	244,755		244,755	10.0
Middlebury College, wood, per US-EIA		2,298	2,298	?
Farm methane; Standard Offer		22,674	22,674	14.5 to 20.0
Landfill methane		52,931	52,931	9.0
Wind		161,198	161,198	11.6 to 25.8
Total	903,535	763,355	1,666,890
VT total fed to grid, MWh	6,000,000	6,000,000	6,000,000
VT in-state, %	15.1	12.7	27.8
Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015	4,733,640	4,733,640
Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ			4,333,110
HQ, per Power Purchase Agreement			1,300,000	5.549
ISO-NE annual average price since 2009				5.000

 

APPENDIX 5

GMP Cost of Electricity in 2016 

Table D shows the prices GMP pays for electricity. 

Standard Offer and Net-metering prices are off-the-charts expensive.

EAN members want more SO and Net-metered,

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

 

In 2016, the PUC began competitive bidding of SO solar systems.

Some recent SO solar bids were as low as 11 c/kWh.

More SO systems would slowly reduce SO solar below 21.793 c/kWh in future years. See Appendix.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table D/GMP costs	1	2	3	4	5
GMP purchases, 2016	MWh	% of purchases	Cost, $	c/kWh	% of Cost
HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)	919312	22.13	51013678	5.549	20.34
Standard Offer	78920	1.90	17199202	21.793	6.86
Net-metered	71970	1.73	15699137	21.813	6.26
Ryegate (wood)	126707	3.05	12710175	10.031	5.07
ISO wholesale	575553	13.85	18645214	3.240	7.43
Misc. sources	1772462	42.66	115267406	6.503	45.96
Other sources	2382075	57.34	135516232	5.689	54.04
Total GMP purchases	4154537	100.00	250783638	6.036	100.00
ISO midday wholesale				6.000

 

APPENDIX 6

Gas Guzzler Fees to Reduce CO2

Vermont should have an energy efficiency standard for light duty vehicles.

Annual fees would be paid at time of annual registration.

Inefficient vehicles would rapidly disappear.

CO2 would be rapidly reduced.

The collected funds could be used for filling potholes.

The wasteful Comprehensive Transportation Initiative, TCI, would not be needed.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-and-m...

 

Table E/EPA combined, mpg	Fee, $/y
40	0
39	10
38	20
37	30
36	40
35	50
34	60
Etc.

 

APPENDIX 7

GMP Purchased Electricity Mix

 

GMP electricity mix based on PPAs, i.e., paper contracts. 

GMP increased purchases of large hydro and nuclear, which have very low CO2/kWh.

GMP decreased purchases on the wholesale market, which had 299 g CO2/kWh in 2018, fed to grid basis, PE basis.

 

GMP’s paper PPAs for hydro and nuclear did not physically reduce any CO2 anywhere.

GMP is required to have such PPAs to satisfy state-RES mandates.

GMP did not need to spend any money to make any changes in its operations to reduce CO2

  

Table F/GMP Electricity Mix	2017	2018	2019
	%	%	%
Large hydro	23.7	49.4
Existing VT hydro	6.3	6.3
Total hydro	30.0	55.7	60.6
Wholesale market purchases	30.4	28.2	9.8
Nuclear	14.7	14.7	27.9
Oil and natural gas	0.5	0.4
Methane	0.7
Hydro	5.5
Solar	5.2	0.9	1.7
Wind	8.0
Wood	5.0
Total RE	24.4	0.9	1.7

 

APPENDIX 8

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont 

 

GMP would need to replace the nuclear electricity, as it cannot rely on Seabrook Nuclear to be generating far into the future.

 

If the replacement were in-state RE (primarily wind, solar and storage), there would be major adverse environmental impacts on pristine ridge lines and open spaces in Vermont, plus the cost would be prohibitively expensive, which would adversely affect the Vermont economy. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

APPENDIX 9

Electricity Moves as Electro-Magnetic Waves at Nearly the Speed of Light

 

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.

 

If a utility claims it is 100% renewable, it has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should not use PPAs to calculate the CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physics

Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves 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

- 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/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

 

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated CO2/kWh, at wall meters, to calculate CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Living Off the Grid

 

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you use your own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix

 

APPENDIX 10

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen among six builders to participate in the state’s investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, a competition to encourage builders to plan and develop a home with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009.

 

Carter Scott, President of Transformations, Inc. brought together a team of design and energy experts to not only meet the challenge, but to figure out how to get all the way to zero, while still building an affordable, new house. The team designed a three-bedroom 1,232-sq ft house, called the “Needham," which has a “- 4” HERS rating, i.e., the house produces more energy than it is using. Sales price: $195,200 in 2009

https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-08%20NE...

 

Major Design Features:

 

Roof (R75): 5 inches of high-density polyurethane foam, HDF, and 13 inches of high-density cellulose all along the slope of the second-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12s and a 2 x 4s held off by 3 inches for a thermal break separation 
Walls (R49): 2 x 4 outside wall; added a second 2 x 4 wall for a total depth of 12 inches; filled 3 inches with HDF and 9 inches with cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3 inches of HDF and a layer of R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm triple-pane model with Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless, ASHPs

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal, per blower door test (or 284 cfm for a 2000 sq ft house. See table 8)
Solar: Evergreen Solar’s 30 Spruce Line 190-watt PV panels to create a 6.4-kW system;

Hot Water: SunDrum Solar’s DHW heating system

Heat Loss: About 10,500 Btu/h, at 70F indoor, 6F outdoor (or 2000/1232 x 75 delta T/64 delta T x 10500 = 19,975 Btu/h for a 2000 sq ft house, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, in Vermont)

APPENDIX 11

CO2 of Gasoline and E10

E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

 

Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal

Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal

 

Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol fraction in gasoline (aka, gasohol, or E10) is counted.

Total = 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

Table G/Fuel CO2	Combustion	Upstream	Total
	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal
Burning pure gasoline	19.569
Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA		4.892
Total			24.461
Burning pure ethanol	12.720
Cropping, processing, blending		13.556
Total			26.276
Burning E10 (90/10)	18.884
Upstream		5.759
Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted			24.643
Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted	17.612	5.759	23.371
.
Burning pure diesel	22.456
Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA		6.063
Total			28.519
Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil	20.130
Upstream = 43% of combustion		8.656
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.786
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted			8.656
Burning B20 (80/20)	21.991
Upstream		6.582
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.572
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted	17.965	6.582	24.546