VERMONT ENERGY ACTION NETWORK, EAN, SOLAR BUILD-OUT TO MEET “PARIS”

 

The EAN solar build-out, to “meet Paris” would be from 438.84 MW dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025

 

Cost Shifting to Ratepayers: Current cost shifting to ratepayers for solar production of 473,686 MWh, at end 2019, was about $64 million.

The cost shifting would become about $130 million, if solar production were increased by 700,000 MWh during the 2020 – 2025 period, per EAN plan. See table 4 in URL and Appendix

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

 

The increased solar would cause much larger, grid-disturbing, midday DUCK-curves.

See VELCO graph in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

Managing DUCK-curves costs money. The costs, about 1.1 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

The costs would be much higher, 15 to 20 c/kWh, if battery systems, with about 15-y lives, were involved.

Batteries have a loss of 15 – 20% of any electricity passing through them, on a high-voltage to high-voltage basis.

 

Solar requires significant grid extension/augmentation. The costs, about 1.0 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

 

Solar Requires Large Land Areas: A 2.2 MW system requires about 10 acres

It would have an output of about 2.2 x 8766 x 0.145 = 2,796 MWh of weather-dependent, season-dependent, variable electricity, with daily DUCK-curves.

 

The EAN solar build-out would require 700000/2796 = 250 of such systems on 2,500 acres spread-out all over Vermont, at end 2025.

The turnkey capital cost would be 250 x 2.2 x 3.5 million/MW = $1.928 BILLION.

The systems would last about 25 years.

 

Solar is the most expensive electricity on the Vermont grid.

Build-outs of solar benefit mostly Chinese companies.

It would not be smart policy to have more of it.

 

Solar Compared with a Gas-Turbine Power Plant

 

- A 500-MW, combined-cycle, 60%-efficient, gas plant would require only 10 acres

- It would have an output of about 500 x 8766 x 0.80 = 3,506,400 MWh of steady electricity, 24/7/365, that is not weather-dependent, not season-dependent.

- The capital cost would be about $500 million.

- The plant would last about 40 years.

- The output would be about 1,254 times greater from the same land area, i.e., about 12,540 acres of solar panels, located all over Vermont, would be required to equal the electricity production of one 500 MW CCGT plant.

- The CO2 related to: 1) making the solar systems and installing them, 2) disturbing the ground, 3) augmenting/extending the grid, and 4) dealing with DUCK-curves, would be enormous.

 

NOTE: NE grid wholesale prices have been about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of low-cost, clean-burning, low-CO2 gas, and near-CO2-free nuclear.

 

NOTE: GMP buys nuclear from the Seabrook Nuclear plant to artificially/politically lower its CO2, on “paper”, without spending a dime to really reduce CO2.

A RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FOR VERMONT INSTEAD OF GWSA

 

California: California has had a GWSA law since 2006, which resulted in:

 

- Rapid increases of electric rates and gasoline prices

- Huge DUCK-curves, due to midday solar electricity surges

- Unwise/untimely/political/ideological shutdown of gas plants, which resulted in rolling blackouts, when, during a multi-day heat wave, solar disappearing in late-afternoon/early-evening (DURING PEAK HOURS), and not reappearing until mid-morning THE NEXT DAY, while all that time wind was minimal.

- A host of rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, and penalties to enforce behavior modification programs

 

With high levels of weather-dependent wind and solar, huge storage (multiple TWh) would be required.

That storage would cost several trillion dollars, if materials could be found to build such capacity. It would need to cover:

 

1) Single and multi-day heat waves over large areas

2) Wind/solar lulls throughout the year, as frequently occur in New England

3) Short-term and seasonal variations.

 

The ADDITIONAL environmental impact on millions of acres with wind and solar systems, would be enormous all over the US.

 

It would be much better to build millions of PASSIVHAUS-style buildings all over the US.
They would need only 1/3 the energy of the current energy hogs.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-pol...

 

Vermont: For Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California.

Vermont should immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

 

1) Energy conservation
2) Energy efficiency
3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.

5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

 

The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive

Most of the other energy measures are just expensively subsidized hogwash and behavior modifications that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.

EAN USED ARTIFICIAL/POLITICAL EMISSIONS OF VERMONT ELECTRICAL SECTOR

 

The EAN-CO2 reduction from 9.99 MMt in 2015 to 9.02 MMt in 2018 was “achieved” by basing the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants.

 

All utilities, which physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the NE grid, must have such PPAs, per ISO-NE requirements, as otherwise they would be stealing from the grid.

 

EAN/VT-DPS concocted an artificial/political value of 34 g CO2/kWh, based on PPAs, about 8 times less than NE grid CO2/kWh, to “evaluate” the CO2 reduction of heat pumps and electric vehicles to make them look extra good!!! Such deception is sheer chicanery. See and URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

Conflict of Interest

 

- 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/

 

1) VT-DPS Concocting an Artificial/Political CO2/kWh for Vermont, based on PPAs

 

VT-DPS concocted an artificial CO2 emission for the Vermont grid of 34 g/kWh, based on paper power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with in-state and out-of-state electricity producers.

This concocted value, which has no physical basis, is about 8 times less than the NE grid CO2 value, as determined by ISO-NE.

 

GMP, et al., merely signs some papers, and presto, its electricity is certified green, and has low CO2. 

Break out the champaign. The system has been gamed.

 

All other Vermonters have to bust their chops, and save hard-earned money, because they are mandated to buy heat pumps, EVs, insulate their homes to be "net zero", etc., to be certified green

 

Physically, almost all Vermont electricity is drawn by utilities from high voltage grids. There is absolutely no reason for not using the NE grid CO2 value, other than deliberate deception. See below explanation.

 

2) NE Electric Grid CO2 in 2018, based on Primary Energy

 

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 from Nearby Grids: Imports were 17% of total electricity fed to the NE grid.

 

New York State electric grid CO2 was 464 lb/MWh, in 2018, or 211 g/kWh

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/

 

Quebec electric grid CO2 was 500 g/MWh, in 2018, or 0.5 g/kWh

https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/co2-emis...

 

I assumed imports have zero g CO2/kWh, which likely understates the real-world conditions.

 

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

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

 

Table 2/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

 

3) 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 Outlets: Vermont ratepayer 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”.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

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 wall 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 out-of-state nuclear and hydro. 

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

 

4) Vermont Utilities and VT-DPS “Reduce” CO2

 

No CO2 is reduced by GMP and other Vermont utilities 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/political 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 3/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