Power Grid On The Verge Of Failure, Residents Begged To Change Their EV Charging Routines

Matthew Moniot, a researcher with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said that most drivers who charge at night "will have to change" their routines: "If you look at aggregate load across the grid, it tends to spike in the evening hours whenever people come home." He called it a "tricky problem" that relies on "how much can we move what's currently overnight charging to be during the daytime hours, when generation may be more excessive."

Read the full article at the following weblink:


The fundamental deception of wind and solar is so obvious that you would think that no one of any intelligence could possibly fall for it

The promoters of the climate scam have a variety of deceptions to get the gullible to accede to their socialist plans. Those deceptions range from the quite sophisticated to the completely preposterous. At the sophisticated end of the scale we have what I have called The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — the deception by which 50 and 100 year old temperature records are altered (reduced) by impenetrable computer algorithms to make it seem like global warming has been much greater than the reality. At the preposterous end of the scale we have the claim that the fashionable “renewable” sources of electric power, wind and solar, are actually cheaper than fossil fuels to generate electricity.

I call this claim preposterous because the fundamental deception is so obvious that you would think that no one of any intelligence could possibly fall for it. And yet you have undoubtedly read numerous articles in the past few years asserting that wind and solar-generated electricity is now as cheap or cheaper than electricity from natural gas or coal. To make the claim, the promoters of wind and solar simply omit from their calculations the single biggest part of the cost of those sources. That would the cost of intermittency, otherwise known as the cost of providing sufficient backup or storage to run a stable electrical grid while generation from the wind and sun fluctuates wildly. (As wind and solar become a bigger and bigger part of power generation on the grid, the cost of necessary backup and/or storage could easily multiply the cost of electricity by a factor of five or more. For instance, see my post here.).

To divert your attention from this elephant in the room, somebody has come up with the concept of “levelized cost of energy,” or LCOE, supposedly to make fair apples-to-apples comparisons of the total costs of one energy sources versus another. There are seemingly sophisticated and technical discussions of life cycles and discount rates. But then, when putting a cost on wind and solar, they just completely omit the costs of intermittency. I suppose they hope that you won’t notice.

Read the full article at the following weblink:


Texas Residents Had the Temperature Raised on Their Smart Thermostats Without Their Knowledge During a Heat Wave


Fraud, lies and cover-ups are the backbone of the ‘global warming theory’



Gen. Tom McInerney: Here’s Why the Chinese Top Intel Head Defected to the DIA, NOT the CIA or FBI


Trump Releases Statement Calling Out ‘Very Fraudulent Election,’ Then Teases ‘2024 or Before!’


America Awakening: How did a few isolated office furniture fires send a 47 story steel skyscraper into freefall (they didn't)


Views: 118


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 June 24, 2021 at 8:40am



Warren Buffett Riding the Subsidy Gravy Train


Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate, 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." 



Green Mountain Power, GMP, Riding the Subsidy Gravy Train


Vermont utilities buy about 1.4 million MWh/y of hydro power, at 5.7 c/kWh, under a 20-y contract, from Hydro Quebec. The HQ electricity is not variable, not intermittent and does not cause midday solar bulges


GMP, a Canadian company, refuses to buy more hydro electricity from HQ, because that electricity would just be a “pass-through”, on which GMP would make minimal profit. HQ has plenty of electricity and is eager to sell it. This approach requires no subsidies!!


GMP rakes in millions of our hard-earned money, by investing in: 1) utility-scale solar/battery combos, 2) leasing heat pumps and 3) wall-hung Tesla batteries for playing “catch the peak games”.


GMP rides the subsidy gravy train, a la Warren Buffett, and plays the “green, forward-looking utility” role.


Per standard Wall Street practice for tax-shelters, the cash value of the subsidies is about 45% of the project turnkey cost, which includes the costs of: 1) financing, 2) subsidies, 3) owner’s return on investment.


The subsidies are “front-loaded”, i.e., about 40% is recovered by GMP in the first 5 years, the other 5% in the remaining years, i.e., skimming the fat off the milk for GMP in the early years, and long-term increased costs for ratepayers and taxpayers.






Cost Shifting from Owners to Ratepayers and Taxpayers


The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 45%, due to subsidies. However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added, in one way or another, onto:


1) The rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers

2) Taxpayers, by means of extra taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills

3) Government budgets

4) Government debt

5) Prices of goods and services other than electricity


If the subsidies had to be paid by owners of wind and solar systems, the contract prices paid to owners would need to be:

- At least 19.3 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, for large-scale solar

- At least 15.5 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, for ridge line wind. See table 1 and URL



Shifting Grid Costs


Many small-scale solar systems and/or a few large-scale solar systems on a distribution grid would excessively disturb the grid, especially at midday. Battery systems, with sufficient capacity could counteract the output variations of those solar systems.


Wind and solar systems could not be connected to the grid without the services of the CCGT plants, i.e., shutting down CCGT plants, and artificially diminishing/obstructing their domestically produced gas supply, advocated by pro RE folks, would not be an economic option for decades, if ever, because of the high costs of battery systems.


1) The cost of extension/augmentation of electric grids to connect widely distributed wind and solar systems (not paid by wind and solar system owners)


2) The cost of services rendered by other generators, mostly CCGT plants, which counteract the ups and downs of weather/season-dependent, variable, intermittent wind and solar outputs, 24/7/365 (not paid by wind and solar system owners).


3) The cost of battery systems to stabilize distribution grids, due to variations of the solar and wind system outputs (not paid by wind and solar system owners).


Shifting Owning and Operating Costs


The combined effect of cost shifting, determined behind closed doors, increases a project’s annual cash flow, i.e., “left-over-money”, to provide an ample profit for the RE system owner.


RE system owners are happy, having the “ears” of friendly politicians, saving the world from climate change, and claiming: “See, my project is profitable and competitive”, while everyone else gets hosed.


1) Grants from various sources, such as the VT Clean Energy Development Fund

2) 26% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs. Tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes GMP pays on profits

3) 100% depreciation over 5 years; the normal for utilities is 20 to 25 years. Write-offs reduce GMP taxable income

4) Deductions of interest on borrowed money. Interest deductions reduce GMP taxable income.

5) Various O&M payments are waved, such as sales tax, fees, property tax, school tax, municipal tax, etc.

6) RE system owners sell their output at two to four times NE wholesale market rates, which have averaged about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of:


- Low-cost, low-CO2, very-low-particulate, gas-fired CCGT plants

- Highly reliable, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, nuclear plants

- Low-cost, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, hydro plants Canada.


 All-in Cost of Wind and Solar


Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:


1) Above-market-price paid to owners 

2) Subsidies paid to owners

3) Owner return on invested capital

4) Grid extension/augmentation (not paid by owners)

5) Grid support services (not paid by owners) 

6) Future battery systems (not paid by owners)


Comments on table 1


- The owners of legacy systems were paid much higher prices, than owners of newer systems.


- Vermont legacy “Standard Offer” solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh


- Wind prices paid to owner did not have such drastic reductions as solar prices.


- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems


- "Added to the rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, which is used to set electric rates.


- “Traditional cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which traditional is added to the utility rate base


- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.



1) The prices should be compared with the NE wholesale grid price, which has averaged about 4.2 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants, which provided at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid in 2019.


- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%, after 20 years of subsidies

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid




2) There are O&M costs of the NE grid, in addition to wholesale prices.

ISO-NE pro-rates these costs to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh. Charges for: 

Regional network services, RNS, are based on the peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, are based on the peak demand occurring during a year.


3) Each local utility has its own O&M grid costs, in addition to item 2, some of which are detailed on electric bills.


4) Vermont utilities buy electricity from various sources; average cost about 6 c/kWh, plus ISO-NE charges of about 1.6 c/kWh, for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.


Table 1/Vermont & NE sources

Paid to


Grid support*


 Added to





to owner



rate base










Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, new









Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, legacy









Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, combo








Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, legacy








Wind, ridge line, new








Wind, offshore, new








 * Excludes future battery costs

Comment by Willem Post on June 24, 2021 at 8:36am




The electric bus pilot program was funded by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) with about $2 million, and administered by the Massachusetts State Department of Energy Resources. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, VEIC, performed the evaluation of the program. Three Lion electric buses were operated by the school districts of Amherst, Concord, and Cambridge from the Fall of 2016 to early 2018


The capital cost at each site was $327,500 for the bus, plus about $25,000 for single-direction, Level 2 charger.


There are other balance-of-plant costs for a complete electric bus system, but they were ignored. For example, the capital cost of parking facilities with chargers for an electric bus system is much greater than diesel bus system



Cold Climate Penalty


The MA buses, with a cold climate, required 1.890/1.745 = 8.3% more electricity from the wall outlet to have 1.390/1.325 = 4.3% more electricity in the battery than the SSI buses, with a mild climate, to travel the same distance.


Table 4 shows:


1) The draw of kWh AC/mile, from wall meter

2) The resulting “in battery” kWh DC/mile

3) The charging ratio for an EV car and 3 electric school buses


The MA column is included to compare the SSI system with an MA system, if the MA had been efficiently operated

The MA Pilot Program was poorly executed, due to uncontrolled/haphazard charging, which greatly increased electricity consumption, plus there were numerous equipment issues.

It would have been wiser to have had all three buses at one location, instead of one bus at each of three locations.


Table 4/Losses




Pilot Program



School bus

School Bus

School Bus

School Bus







Parking location






Wall meter, kWh AC/mile (1)






AC to DC, etc., factor






To battery kWh DC/mile






Battery resistance factor






Loss-while-charging factor






In battery, kWh DC/mile (2)






Battery resistance factor






Available, kWh DC/mile






Misc. losses, % of (2)






Misc. losses, kWh DC/mile






To wheels, kWh DC/mile






Charging ratio (1)/(2)









Pilot Program travel 4,634 miles/bus; uncontrolled charging loss 71.3%; with demand charges

See page 4 and 45 of URL



Pilot Program measured consumption, at wall outlet, was 2.38 kWh AC/mile

This includes charging and miscellaneous losses while charging, and all other losses.

The charging factor was about 1.713, because of haphazard/uncontrolled charging. See table 4

Various electric systems are “always-on”, i.e., during charging, driving, or parking.


Amortizing Capital Cost: VEIC ignored amortizing costs, which should have been included.

The amortizing cost of an electric bus system would be at least 3.5 times a diesel bus system, on a system-to-system basis. 

The 3.5 ratio is for only the buses. It excludes various capital costs for a complete electric bus system

Both systems would need to have the same levels of service for comparison purposes, such as 12,000 miles/y. 

This may not be the case for electric buses, if there were a need for long road trips.




This section shows all references to the VEIC “on-paper” simulation, including figure 18, should be deleted from the VEIC report, because the simulation led to at least 2 physical impossibilities!!


1) VEIC assumption of 1.47 kWh AC/mile, with a cold climate, is physically impossible

2) VEIC assumption of NO DEMAND charges is physically impossible


Quote from VEIC report: Using a bus operating efficiency of 1.47 kWh/mile, the schools’ electric rates, hours of bus use, and mileage, VEIC was able to estimate the cost savings available if charging were to be managed to a minimum number of hours, outside of peak demand times (i.e., no demand charges). Bus total energy costs would have been $0.22 / mile and efficiency 1.47 kWh / mile, much closer to Lion bus purported operating efficiency of 1.3 - 1.4 kWh/mile. See Note



1) The VEIC statement “1.47 kWh / mile, much closer to Lion bus purported operating efficiency of 1.3 - 1.4 kWh/mile” is in error; it mixes AC with DC.

The 1.47 kWh/mile should have been stated as 1.47 kWh AC/mile.

VEIC uses that value to calculate its “optimistic/optimized” 22 c/mile. See below calculation.


2) Lion brochures state bus consumption as 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC/mile (energy from battery to travel a mile), for a range of climates and operating conditions.

The 1.3 is for mild climates, flat/smooth roads, as on SSI, British Columbia.

The 1.4 is for cold climates, hilly/rough roads, as in much of New England. See table 4


As calculated by VEIC:


MA Pilot Program

Electric bus electricity = $4,110, energy + $2,608, demand = $6,718

Total energy cost: ($6718/13902 mile = 48.3 c/mile) + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 52.1 c/mile

Diesel bus total energy cost = 32 c/mile.


MA “On-Paper” Simulation; no demand charges

Electric bus electricity cost = 1.47 kWh AC/mile x 13902 x 0.13 c/kWh = $2,561/y

Total energy cost: ($2561/13902 mile = 18.4 c/mile) + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 22.2 c/mile

See pages 35, 36, 37 of URL


Utilization of School Buses

School buses, diesel or electric, are parked most of the time during a school day, and during Xmas vacation, Spring break, summer, 2 or 3-day weekends, and holidays. 
All-together, they are used about 5 h/d x 180d / 8766 h/y = 10.3% of the year. 


VEIC claimed no charging is required in New England, with a cold climate, during:


1) Most of these idle hours, cold or not

2) No charging during all peak demand hours, cold or not.


The VEIC assumption of no demand charges is contrary to SSI real-world experience


Quote from SSI ReportBritish Columbia Hydro has filed an application with the BC Utilities Commission for a special rate for fleet charging. They are proposing to eliminate the demand charge for the Large General Service rate, which would reduce that cost of charging a school bus by as much as half depending on the power rating of the chargers used.



NOTE: Interrupting the protection of $100,000 batteries is not an option, with a mild climate or a cold climate.

See section “Charging Electric Buses During Cold Daytimes and Night-times”

See SSI report.


Charging of Electric Buses: The VEIC claim of 1.47 kWh AC/mile, from wall outlet, equivalent to about 1.390 kWh DC/mile, in the battery, would lead to a charging percent of 1.470/1.390 = 5.8%, which is physically impossible. That charging percent would be only 5.8/17.3 = 33% of the values of Teslas and other EVs!! See table 4 and Note


NOTE: The typical 17 to 18 charging percent of EV cars certainly would not apply to school buses, because: 


1) They have idle-time of about 90% of the hours of a year, and would be parked outdoors, 

2) They are required to provide high reliability of service on Monday morning, even after they have been parked on Saturday and Sunday, especially during cold days.

3) See EV charging percent of three real-world examples in Appendix


Charging Percent Summary/Comparison; see table 4

- MA Pilot Program required about 2.38 kWh AC/mile; charging 71.3%

- Vermont; average winter temperature 22F; requires about 1.890 kWh AC/mile; charging 36.0%. See fig. 13 of mass.gov URL

- SSI, BC; average winter temperature 45F; required about 1.745 kWh AC/mile; charging 31.7%

- EV average charging 17 to 18 percent. See real-world examples in Appendix

- MA Pilot, VEIC “optimized”, required 1.47 kWh AC/mile; charging 5.8%; physically impossible, as proven by the SSI, BC bus program.


Comment by Willem Post on June 23, 2021 at 4:12pm

“Democratic sponsors called THEIR bill, “The For the People Act.”

It was cooked up by Pelosi’s highly partisan lawyers.

It included everything Dem/Progs always wanted.

Republicans called it “The Corrupt Politicians Act.”

In reality, it was a “Permanent Destruction of the Republican Party Act”.

The bill would lead to Dem/Progs implementing a COMMAND/CONTROL “NEW SOCIALIST ORDER”, under the guise of fighting climate change, a la Bernie Sanders, who celebrated his honeymoon in the USSR!

This would lead to the destruction of the US Private Enterprise system, the envy of the World, which creates Teslas, Apples, Googles, Amazons, Netflix, etc.

It would ENSURE political dominance by Dem/Progs FOREVER.

Republican Legislatures finally woke up after the 2020 elections.
They passed laws that significantly reduced fraud opportunities regarding the “processing” of MAIL-IN BALLOTS.

Here is an example of a a LARGE-SCALE, PRE-MEDITATED, ELECTION-OUTCOME-MANIPULATION FRAUD, perpetrated by leftist Dem/Progs, to achieve a Coup d’Etat, a power grab, a la Banana Republic.

See URL for details

This premeditated, 288,000-mail-in-ballot fraud took place in New York and Pennsylvania (20 Electoral votes) several months BEFORE the election.

It likely was not the only pre-meditated fraud in the swing states, that simultaneously stopped counting ballots on Election Night, to “assess” the situation, because Trump was too far ahead.

This 288,000-mail-in-ballot fraud was so large, it took victory from hard-campaigning Trump, and donated it to mumbling/bumbling, in-the-basement Biden.

The US media, in cahoots with the Dem/Progs, kept on writing, “There was no large-scale voter fraud that could alter the outcome of the election”, and “these are unfounded, unproven allegations”, and “unhinged conspiracy theories”.

The US Media blatantly continued their writings, even AFTER all of the Jesse episode became public knowledge before Thanksgiving.

The US Media purposely calls it “VOTER FRAUD” to manipulate people off the real issue.

The 288,000-mail-in-ballot fraud had nothing to do with “VOTERS”.

Often, the ballot “processing” was performed:

1) By pre-selected Dem/Prog personnel
2) In Dem/Prog-controlled cities of swing states
3) Without proper supervision/observation
4) Without transparent and secure chain of custody.

Uncle Joe Stalin: “I do not care who votes. I care only about who COUNTS the votes”

Comment by Dan McKay on June 23, 2021 at 10:26am

The climate lockdowns begin

Comment by Penny Gray on June 23, 2021 at 10:18am

The entire grid will have to collapse before most folks "get it". When the remaining coal fired and nuclear power plants are shut down, this will happen.  It will be a painful and quite possibly deadly awakening.

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."



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


(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!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service