ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN NEW ENGLAND AND CANADA

China, India, New England and Vermont

 

Electric bus proponents often point to China to advance their interests, i.e., sell more electric buses

China has made electric buses and EVs in urban areas a priority to reduce its well-known excessive air pollution, due to: 1) using a lot of coal in dirty, inefficient power plants, and 2) vastly increased vehicle traffic in urban complexes with 15 to 30 million people each.

 

India has a China pollution problem, but not China's money and work ethic, i.e., few electric vehicles.

Those two countries emit about 45 - 50% of all world pollution and GHG.

 

The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas. 

The US uses more domestic gas and much less coal, and nuclear is still around.

 

New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.

 

Vermont, known for its cleaner air, has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and some of its other urban areas, i.e., no need to use scare-mongering to rush into expensively advancing Montpelier’s electric school bus goals.

 

Governor and Senators Seeking More Electric Vehicles and Buses with Federal COVID Money

 

The energy priorities of New England governments are driven by a self-serving cabal of RE folks. All is decided at high levels. Ordinary people rarely participate during government hearings, except those pre-selected to say the right things.

 

The cabal has powerful allies on Wall Street, which is molding the minds of people by means of generous donations to universities and think tanks. Here is an example of the resulting double-speak:

 

Vermont’s Governor: “Investing in more energy-efficient public transportation is important for our economy and environment,” the governor said. He added that the COVID money is enabling the transportation agency to replace as many as 30 buses and fund energy-efficient projects."

http://www.truenorthreports.com/governor-and-senators-seeking-more-...

 

NOTE: Each $325,000 electric school bus reduces CO2 by about 10 metric ton/y, compared to a $100,000 diesel bus. Vermont has much better CO2 reduction options. See Appendix.

The Vermont House Energy/Environment Committee, the VT Transportation Department, VEIC, EAN, etc., echo the same message, to "convince" legislators, people in the Governor's Office, and Vermonters, to use COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy expensive electric buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont.

Such an electric vehicle measure would be much more appropriate in the over-crowded, down-town Boston Area and the Connecticut Gold Coast.

 

The cabal urge Vermonters to buy electric buses at about:

 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 per mass-transit bus, plus high-speed charging systems.

standard diesel mass-transit bus costs $380,000 - $420,000

 

$330,000 - $375,000, per school bus, plus high-speed charging systems.

A standard diesel/gasoline school bus costs about $100,000

https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Electric-Buses-a...

 

“Free” Federal COVID Money for Expensive Electric School Buses

 

The Governor and bureaucrats are throwing COVID money, meant for suffering households and businesses, into another climate-fighting black hole.

 

Spending huge amounts of capital on various projects that yield minor reductions in CO2, is a recipe for low economic efficiency, and for low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would adversely affect state and US competitiveness in markets, and adversely affect living standards and job creation.

 

Costs of Government RE Programs

 

Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with COVID money, likely would prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

 

Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

 

Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

 

RE proponents do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious climate projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses. If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time, per Economics 101

 

Capital cost of electric bus, plus charger, $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500

Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 60 to 80-mile range.

Capital cost of diesel bus, $100,000

Additional capital cost, 352500 - 100000 = $252,500

Travel, 12,000 miles/y, the average of diesel school buses in Vermont.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

Summary of Costs

 

Table 1A shows the reduction in energy and operating cost, if an electric school bus replaces a diesel school bus. The maintenance data are from the electric school bus project in Salt Spring Island, British Columbia.

 

Amortizing the capital cost difference of only the buses is ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 7.9 times the annual energy and maintenance cost reduction!! It would be greater for complete electric and diesel bus systems.

 

See COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS COSTS

  

Table 1A/Cost/mile

Energy

Maintain

Total

Amortizing

Total

Times 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

SSI

Diesel

34.5

23.0

57.5

Electric

28.4

6.4

34.8

Reduction

6.1

16.6

22.8

180.5

238.0

7.9

MA

Diesel

39.7

23.0

62.7

Electric

35.7

6.4

42.1

Reduction

4.0

16.6

20.6

180.5

243.2

8.8

Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis Includes Combustion, Upstream, Embodied and Downstream CO2

 

A much more realistic CO2-reduction analysis would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

Such analyses have been performed for at least 20 years. Engineers are very familiar with them. They would include:

 

1) Upstream CO2 of energy for extraction, processing and transport to a user

2) Embodied CO2 of expensive batteries, from extraction of materials to installation in a bus

3) Embodied CO2 of $352,500 electric buses vs $100,000 diesel buses

4) Embodied CO2 of balance-of-system components

5) Embodied CO2 of much more expensive electric bus parking facilities, with a Level 2 charger for each bus, than for a diesel bus parking facility with a diesel pump.

6) Downstream CO2 of disposal of batteries, etc.

 

Any CO2 advantage of electric buses vs diesel buses would be less, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

The cost of CO2 reduction would increase from $2,076/metric ton to about $2,500/Mt.

 

Vehicle-to-Grid Operation

 

Proponents of VtG claim electric school buses could be used by utilities, to have the batteries absorb a fraction of midday solar bulges, and deliver that electricity, minus about 20% losses, to the gid during late afternoon/early evening, when peak demands are occurring, and solar has gone to sleep until mid-morning the next day.

 

As part of managing midday-solar DUCK curves, 10 electric school buses, capital cost at least $3.5 million, already partially charged, would absorb 500 kWh during midday and discharge 400 kWh from 5 pm to 8 pm (peak demand hours). See Note.

 

The $100,000 batteries, part of a $325,000 electric school bus, would have extra wear and tear, which would shorten their 15-year lives. This is like doing yardwork in a tuxedo.

A utility could purchase a 600-kWh battery system, for a turnkey cost of about $450,000, and achieve the same results.

 

NOTE: For long life, say 15 years, Li-ion batteries should not be discharged to less than 20%, and not be charged in excess of 80%, per Battery University, which would limit VtG “benefits” of electric school buses and regular EVs. That range also happens to have the highest efficiency. See URLs

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801093718.htm

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-po...

 

Charging Electric Buses During Cold Daytimes and Night-times

 

1) On cold days, the electric bus battery would use its own energy to heat itself above a required minimum temperature during parking and driving

 

2) No charging of Li-ion batteries is permitted, if the battery temperature is less than 32F; discharging at 32F or less is ok.

 

For example, on a cold/freezing day, during peak demand hours or not, a multi-hour power failure could occur.

The not-yet charged batteries could empty themselves to prevent freezing.

The batteries would be ruined, if power were restored to below-32F batteries.

The buses would need to be towed to a warm garage, then charged.

The freezing scenario would be unlikely in most of California, but could occur in Texas, New England, etc. See URLs.

 

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_lo...

 

3) The batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to operate various systems, similar to Teslas and other EVs  

 

4) On cold days, the electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus.

 

5) On cold days, the driver would need at least 70% charge for his morning round, because travel would require more energy per mile. No one should risk having an electric bus run out of juice, with a busload of children, in the winter.

 

NOTE:

If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile

The higher efficiency range is 60F to 80F.

Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures.

Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs

 

NOTE: Where would the electricity come from to charge and protect from cold, the $100,00 batteries during extended electricity outages, due to multi-day hot and cold weather events, as occur in California, Texas and New England?

Emergency standby diesel-generators? Emergency standby batteries?

 

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127610_keep-your-parked-elect...

 

COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS COSTS

 

Electric school buses are beginning to be adopted by a few US school districts as part of reducing CO2.

The main impetus is “free” Volkswagen Settlement funds, and “free” federal COVID funds, to provide “free” electric school buses to school districts.

 

Electric school buses have significantly less O&M costs than diesel buses.

However, that reduction is minuscule, compared with amortizing the turnkey capital cost of the buses

 

O&M operating data of electric school buses have been insufficient to perform any analysis, except for a few cases, such as on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada, and in Massachusetts, New England

 

It was fortunate to have data for SSI, with a mild climate and MA, with a cold climate, to show the impact of climate on school bus performance and O&M expenses.

 

The SSI data includes diesel and electric bus maintenance costs, which were prorated to complete the MA data.

The travel was assumed at 12,000 miles per year, the US average for school buses.

 

The SSI project involved 10 Lion electric school buses.

Turnkey CAPEX; Can $4.375 million, or US $3.5 million

Travel for all buses; 139,345 km, or 87,091 miles, or 8,709 miles/bus

http://saltspringcommunityenergy.com/Electric_Schoolbus_Study/SD64_Electric_School_Bus_Study.pdf

 

The MA project involved 3 Lion electric school buses

Turnkey CAPEX; $1.05 million

Travel for all buses; 13,902 miles, or 4,634 miles/bus

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20school%20bus%20pilot%20final%20report_.pdf

 

O&M Cost Reduction per Bus

 

Diesel bus maintenance for US and Canada = 23 c/mile

Electric bus maintenance for US and Canada = 6.4 c/mile.

 

Electricity, energy, commercial/institutional rate; 13 c//kWh, per VEIC

Electricity demand, controlled charging, assumed for SSI at 25%, and for MA at 30%, of energy cost

 

Lion bus electricity consumption is 1.3 to 1.4 kWh DC/mile, per Lion Corporation literature.

 

SSI electric buses averaged 1.745 kWh AC/mile, from the wall outlet, to have 1.325 kWh DC/mile in the battery (near the low end of the Lion range); mild climates require less electricity/mile. See Note

 

MA electric buses would require 1.890 kWh AC/mile, from the wall outlet, to have 1.390 kWh DC/mile in the battery (near the high end of the Lion range); cold climates require greater electricity/mile.

A separate fuel oil-fired heating system is required for cabin heating, which emits CO2. See Note

 

MA diesel bus mileage; 6.3 mpg, cold climate, per VEIC

SSI diesel bus mileage; 1.15 x 6.3 = 7.25 mpg; mild climates have better mpg and require minimal, or no, cabin heating 

 

SSI electricity cost = 1.745 kWh AC/mile x 13 c/mile = 2722, energy + 0.25 x 2722, demand = US $3,403/y, or 28.4 c/mile    

SSI electric bus total cost = 6.4, maintenance + 28.4, electricity = 34.8 c/mile; no cabin heating.

SSI diesel bus total cost = 23, maintenance + 34.5, fuel = 57.5 c/mile

SSI cost reduction per bus = 57.5 - 34.8 = 22.8 c/mile, or $2,732/y

 

Amortizing the capital cost difference; ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 7.9 times the annual cost reduction!!

 

MA electricity cost = 1.890 kWh AC/mile x 13 c/kWh = 2948 + 0.30 x 2948, demand = US $3,833/y, or 31.9 c/mile

MA electric bus cabin heating cost; 12000 miles x 1 gal/78 miles x $2.93/gal = 3.8 c/mile

MA electric bus total cost = 6.4, maintenance + 31.9, electricity + 3.8, cabin heating = 42.1 c/mile

MA diesel bus total cost = 23, maintenance + 39.7, fuel = 62.7 c/mile

MA cost reduction per bus = 62.7 - 42.1 = 20.6 c/mile, or $2,470/y

 

Amortizing the capital cost difference ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 8.8 times the annual cost reduction per bus!!

Table 1A/Cost/mile

Energy

Maintenance

Total

Amortizing

Total

Times 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

SSI

Diesel

34.5

23.0

57.5

Electric

28.4

6.4

34.8

Reduction

6.1

16.6

22.8

180.5

238.0

7.9

MA

Diesel

39.7

23.0

62.7

Electric

35.7

6.4

42.1

Reduction

4.0

16.6

20.6

180.5

243.2

8.8

CO2 Reduction per Bus

 

NE Grid CO2; 334 g/kWh; that value would slowly decrease as more wind and solar would be added to the electricity mix.

Combustion CO2 of diesel fuel and cabin heating fuel oil is 10.285 kg/gal. See Note.

 

SSI electric bus CO2 = 1.745 kWh AC/mile x 12000 miles x 334 g/kWh x 1000000 g/Mt = 6.99 Mt/y; no cabin heating.

 

MA electric bus CO2 = 1.890 kWh AC/mile x 12000 miles x 334 g/kWh x 1000000 g/Mt = 7.58 Mt/y

MA electric bus cabin heating CO2 = 20000 miles/y x 1 gal/78 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 1.58 Mt/y

Total electric bus CO2 = 7.58 + 1.38 = 9.16 Mt/y

 

SSI diesel bus CO2 = 12000 miles x 1 gal/7.25 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 17.02 Mt/y

MA diesel bus CO2 = 12000 miles x 1 gal/6.30 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 19.59 Mt/y

 

MA electric buses, cold climate, have 9.16/6.99 = 31% more CO2 than SSI electric buses, mild climate

 

SSI CO2 reduction per bus = 17.02, diesel - 6.99, electric = 10.03 Mt/y

MA CO2 reduction per bus = 19.59, diesel - 9.16, electric = 10.43 Mt/y

 

NOTE: SSI bus electricity = 0.14 Mt CO2/y x 1,000,000 g/Mt x 1 yr/8,709 miles x 1 kWh AC/9 g CO2 = 1.745 kWh AC/mile. See spreadsheet in URL

 

NOTE: VEIC, as part of its “on-paper” simulation, claimed, the MA buses, with a cold climate, would need only about 1.47 kWh AC/mile x 13 c/kWh + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 22.2 c/mile. However, that proved to be a physical impossibility, as described below.

 

NOTE: Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by 1) exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs, and 2) insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings, and 3) increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles, would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,076/Mt of electric school buses.

  

NOTE: Combustion CO2eq/gallon is 10.21 kg CO2 + 0.41 g x 25/454, CH4 + 0.08 g x 298/454, N2O = 10.285 kg. See table

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

Table 1/Cold versus Mild Climate

SSI

SSI CO2

MA

MA CO2

Climate

mild

Mt/y

cold

Mt/y

Buses

10

3

Turnkey CAPEX, Can $

4375000

Turnkey CAPEX, US $

3500000

1050000

Travel, km

139345

Travel all buses, mile

87091

13902

.

Diesel maintenance, Can $

25082

4004

Diesel maintenance, US $

20066

3203

Diesel maintenance, US c/mile

23.0

23.0

.

Electric maintenance, Can $

6967

1112

Electric maintenance, US $

5574

890

Electric maintenance, US c/mile

6.4

6.4

.

Travel basis per bus, mile/y

12000

12000

12000

12000

Electricity, kWh AC/mile

1.745

1.890

Electricity, kWh AC/y

20940

20940

22680

22680

Electricity, cost, US c/kWh

13

13

Electricity, cost, $/y

2722

2948

Demand, % of electricity cost

25

30

Demand, US $/y

681

885

Total electricity cost, $/y

3403

3833

Total electricity cost, $/mile

28.4

31.9

Electric bus total, $/mile

34.8

42.1

.

Diesel fuel cost, bulk, $/gal

2.50

2.50

Diesel mileage, mile/gal

7.25

7.25

6.30

6.30

Diesel fuel cost, gal/y

4138

4762

Diesel fuel cost, c/mile

34.5

39.7

Diesel bus total, c/mile

57.5

62.7

.

Cost reduction, c/mile

22.8

20.6

Cost reduction per bus, $/y (1)

2732

2470

.

CO2, g/kWh

335

335

Diesel and fuel oil CO2, kg/gal

10.285

10.285

Cabin heating CO2, Mt/y

0.00

1.58

Electric bus CO2, Mt

6.99

9.16

Diesel bus CO2, Mt

17.02

19.59

CO2 reduction, Mt/y

10.03

10.43

.

Amortizing cost diff., $/y (2)

21661

21661

Ratio of amort’g/cost reduction, (2)/(1)

7.9

 

8.8

 

CO2 Reduction, $/Mt

2160

2076

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS PILOT PROGRAM 

 

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

https://thelionelectric.com/en/products/electric

 

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 2 shows: 1) the draw of kWh AC/mile, from wall meter, 2) the resulting “in battery” kWh DC/mile, and 3) the charging ratio for an EV car and 3 electric school buses.

 

The MA column is presented to continue the above SSI and MA comparison.

 

The MA column mimics the professional level of operation of the SSI system.

 

The MA Pilot Program was poorly executed, due largely to uncontrolled/haphazard charging, which greatly increased electricity consumption. It would have been prudent to have had all three buses at one location, instead of one bus at each of three locations.

Table 3/Losses

Vermont

SSI  

MA

Pilot Program

Car

School bus

School Bus

School Bus

Climate

Cold

Mild

Cold

Cold

Parking location

Indoor

Outdoor

Outdoor

Outdoor

Wall meter, kWh AC/mile (1)

0.350

1.745

1.890

2.380

AC to DC, etc., factor

1.060

1.060

1.060

1.060

To battery kWh DC/mile

0.330

1.646

1.783

2.245

Battery resistance factor

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

Loss-while-charging factor

1.025

1.150

1.188

1.496

In battery kWh DC/mile (2)

0.298

1.325

1.390

1.390

Battery resistance factor

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

Available, kWh DC/mile

0.276

1.227

1.287

1.287

Misc. losses, % of (2)

5.000

5.000

5.000

5.000

Misc. losses, kWh DC/mile

0.014

0.061

0.064

0.064

To wheels, kWh DC/mile

0.262

1.166

1.222

1.222

Charging ratio (1)/(2)

1.173

1.317

1.360

1.713

VEIC EVALUATION OF THE MA-PILOT PROGRAM

 

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

See page 4 and 45 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

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.

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.

  

VEIC “ON-PAPER” SIMULATION TO REDUCE ELECTRIC BUS ENERGY COSTS

 

VEIC performed an “on-paper” simulation to make the electric buses look much better than the diesel buses, because the Pilot Program revealed energy costs of the electric buses were significantly greater, 52 c/mile, than of the diesel buses, 32 c/mile.

 

The aim of the "on-paper" simulation was to:

 

- Reduce electric bus charging costs

- Eliminate all demand charges

 

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

 

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. 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.

 

Lion states kWh DC/mile (energy in the battery), because Lion does not know how and where the buses would be operated, i.e., charging in cold climates and hilly terrain, such as New England, or charging in warm climates and level terrain, such as California.

 

NOTE:

Vermont average winter temperature is about 22F, corresponding to about 1.390 kWh DC/mile. See figure 13 of URL

SSI, BC, average winter temperature is about 45F, corresponding to about 1.325 kWh DC/mile. 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

VEIC Error No. 1: The claim of having no demand charges is physically impossible

 

The MA Pilot Program buses, with a cold climate, had a cost of electricity of $4,110 and demand of $2,608, a total of $6,718. See Note

 

The VEIC “on-paper” simulation claimed, the buses would use only $2,561 of electricity, i.e., the buses would use $2561/ ($0.1285/kWh x 13902 miles) + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 1.47 kWh AC/mile, which would reduce energy cost from 52 c/mile to a much more attractive 22 c/mile. See above quote, and pages 35, 36, 37 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

However, the Lion buses of the SSI Program, with a mild climate, required a real-world 1.745 kWh AC/mile.

 

The VEIC value is not just too low. It is a physical impossibility!!

 

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.

 

This is contrary to SSI real-world experience, with a mild climate.

 

The below italic quote, from the SSI report, shows a petition to eliminate demand charges for school buses to improve their economics. See URL

http://saltspringcommunityenergy.com/Electric_Schoolbus_Study/SD64_...

 

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.

 

If the SSI school district, with a mild climate, required charging of its Lion electric buses, during peak demand hours, for normal operations, why would VEIC make a risky assumption, all charging during peak demand hours would not be required in New England, with a cold climate?

http://saltspringcommunityenergy.com/Electric_Schoolbus_Study/SD64_...

 

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

See above Charging Electric Buses During Cold Daytimes and Night-times and SSI report.

 

NOTE: Demand charges are imposed by a utility on users with high levels of consumption during a billing period.

Pilot Program demand charges were 2608/(4110 + 2608) = 39% of the electricity bills. See page 35 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20... 

 

VEIC Error No. 2: The claim of 1.47 kWh AC/mile, with a mild or cold climate, is physically impossible!!

 

Lion electric bus consumption is 1.3 to 1.4 kWh DC/mile, per Lion brochures.

In cold-climate New England, the required consumption would be about 1.390 kWh DC/mile. 

In mild-climate SSI, the real-world consumption was 1.325 kWh DC/mile.

 

VEIC claimed 1.47 kWh AC/mile, from wall outlet, would result in the required 1.390 kWh DC/mile, in the battery, i.e., a charging percent of 5.8%.

 

That charging percent would be only 5.8/17.5 = 33% of the values of Teslas and other EVs!! See Note.

 

That charging percent is not just too low. It is a physical impossibility!!

 

See EV charging percent of four real-world examples in Appendix

 

NOTE: The typical 17 to 18 charging percent of EV cars 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.

Parking Diesel and Electric Buses

 

Diesel school buses usually are randomly parked, on a paved or hard-pack lot, outdoors. The parking lot likely has a diesel pump

 

Electric buses would need a paved lot, with raised, curbed areas, with one charger for each bus.

The capital cost of such a parking lot would be significantly greater than of a diesel parking lot.

 

On colder days, buses would be continuously plugged in, to protect the batteries and keep them fully charged, to be reliably available for the next day.

 

The conversion to electric buses would significantly increase:

 

1) Capital costs for parking facilities

2) Electricity consumption and demand load on local distribution grids

 

Charging the Batteries of the Buses

 

An electric or diesel school bus would make a 30 - 40 mile run in the morning, and in the afternoon. 

The tank of a diesel bus would be filled once or twice per week. In each case, that would take only a few minutes.

 

The batteries of an electric bus could be filled during midday, because midday solar power would be available on sunny days.

Midday solar DUCK-curves would be reduced.

 

The batteries of an electric bus would need to be charged at night, after utility demand charges would not be in effect.

 

For midday or nighttime charging, each bus would need its own charger, because it takes 3 - 4 hours for a half charge, per Lion.

 

Additional Demands on New England Grid due to EVs and Heat Pumps

 

In the near future, in New England, there may be 2 million EVs charging for several hours, each drawing about 10 kW, plus there may be 50,000 buses and trucks, each drawing about 20 kW, for a total of 21,000 MW, if they were all charging at the same time.

The 21,000 MW may be reduced to, say 10,000 MW, by means of clever juggling of time slots.

 

On colder days, two million heat pumps, each drawing about 2.5 kW, a total draw of 5,000 MW, would be in addition; more clever juggling.

 

These additional demands, even with juggling, would significantly exceed the existing demands on the NE grid and electricity generating capacity. See Appendix.

 

If nuclear and gas power plants were closed down, per RE zealot wishes, where would the electricity come from, when:

 

1) Midday solar electricity is minimal, because it is cloudy, or the panels are covered with snow and ice?

2) Wind electricity is minimal many hours of almost each day of the year?

3) Periods of minimal wind and minimal sun, which occur at random in NE, last 5 to 7 days?

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

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

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

 

OPERATING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

 

- Pilot program bus range is about 75 miles, per Lion. VEIC determined the range averaged from 60 miles at 15F, to 90 miles at 75F, in Massachusetts, where it is not as cold as Vermont. See Notes.

 

- On-board, fuel oil-fired cabin heater, with fuel tank, to ensure cabin temperatures are maintained.

- Cabin heating was assumed at an average of 78 miles of bus travel per gallon, per VEIC

- Diesel bus mileage was assumed at 6.3 mpg, per VEIC

- Diesel price was assumed at $2.00/gal, per VEIC

- Electricity price was assumed at 13 c/kWh, per VEIC

- Battery capacity is 104 kWh DC, per Lion.

- Charging time is 6 - 8 hours, per Lion

- Electricity from the battery is 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC per mile while driving, per Lion. This does not include:

 

1) The charging loss

2) Miscellaneous losses of about 6% (ideal conditions), about 8% (real-world), about 10% (adverse conditions).

 

Electric Bus Range

 

Lion states the buses have a new battery capacity of 104 kWh DC and a range of 75 miles, and that they use 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC/mile

This does not include charging losses

 

Lion does not state how that range was determined.

 

- Was an empty bus tested at the factory?

- Was an empty bus driven on a flat, dry, paved road, at a steady speed, on a 70F-day, which would require minimal kWh DC/mile from the battery?

- Was the bus driven on a hilly road, with some snow and ice, while loading children, often with backpacks, in a start-stop manner, on a 15F-day, which would require maximal kWh/mile from the battery?

 

See URL, and next section, and Appendix for 4 real-world EV examples.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Battery Loss of Range, due to Aging

 

Each year, thousands of Tesla owners report their mileage and battery kWh to Tesla.

It was found batteries lose range at about 1%/y. Tesla is known for its excellent batteries.

The batteries lose about 9% of range at 288,000 km, or 12,000 x 15y =180,000 miles

 

Miscellaneous Losses of Electric School Bus

 

The losses drawn from the battery, as kWh DC, include:

 

1) Battery heating and cooling during charging, operation and standing; some EVs use heat pumps

2) Hot and cold weather operation, which has increased battery losses

3) Heated driver seat/mirrors/wipers

4) Audio/video/various lights/on-board electronics

5) Road conditions, such as dirt roads, snow and ice, hilly terrain

6) A load of students with backpacks

7) While parked in a garage or field

8) Driving habits of operators

 
NOTE; Real-world 
range of new electric vehicles is about 10 to 20% less than EPA combined, and up to 40% less on hilly, snow/ice-covered roads, during winter days, with 20F or less temperatures.

 

NOTE: Real-world consumption of EVs is greater than EPA combined, due to miscellaneous losses, which, on an annual average basis, vary from about 6% (ideal conditions) to about 10% (adverse conditions). See Appendix

 

Battery Service Useful Life

 

- Battery University recommends batteries be operated between 20% charge and 80% charge for long useful life, such as 15 years; that range happens to be the most efficient, in terms of kWh DC/mile. See green line in image.

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries

- The efficiency curve moves slightly upward from the average at higher temperatures, slightly downward at lower temperatures.

- Charging from 5% to 20%, and from 80% to 95%, is inefficient, i.e., more kWh/mile from the wall plug, as would discharging for these ranges.

- Discharging the batteries from 5% charge to 95% charge, aka “range driving”, would significantly reduce useful service life, as would charging from 5% to 95%.

- This means the Lion typical operating range, for long useful service life, would be significantly less than 75 miles under normal conditions, but even less during colder days in winter.

Low Utilization Rates and Operating Challenges  

 

Participating school districts encountered a number of mechanical and logistical challenges, i.e., this emerging technology requires further testing and refinement before widespread deployment can occur. 

 

The three buses logged a total of 13,902 miles, or 4,634 miles/bus. See Note

The three buses provided school transportation for about 382 days (including some summer school), or 127 days/bus

 

If the buses had been driven every school day (180 days), including summer school (say 40 days), each bus would be on the road 220 days.

 

However, each bus was on the road only 127 days, i.e., 127/220 = 42% of the days the electric buses were not used, largely due to a variety of breakdown issues, which often took a long time to correct, because Lion has no service infrastructure in the US. See VEIC report.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

NOTE: Annual school bus travel in the US and Vermont is about 12,000 miles.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

 

Comment on table: During “recorded days” electric bus operating data were collected. This was not the case for 382 - 279 = 103 days of the pilot program, for various reasons. It would be interesting to know the reasons operating data were not collected for each day. 

 

Table 7/School

Total miles

Recorded days

Travel days

Miles/d

kWh/mile

Amherst

5302

 150

150

34

2.38

Cambridge

4425

39

142

31

2.38

Concord

4176

90

90

46

2.38

Total

13902

279

382

 

 

Days/bus

 

 

127

 

 

 

Electric Bus Fuel Oil-Fired Cabin Heater 

 

If electric bus cabin heating were performed with electric heaters drawing from the battery, about 0.8 kWh DC/km, or 1.28 kWh DC/mile would be required at 0 C, or 32 F outdoor temperature, even more at less than 32 F. That would place an unacceptable burden on the battery. Therefore, fuel oil-fired heaters are used.

 

Proheat-M80, fuel oil-fired, bus cabin heater, rating 80,000 Btu/h, fuel consumption 0.78 gal/h.

The heater efficiency is 80,000 Btu/h output/ (0.78 x 140,000, heating value) = 73%

https://www.tomahawkind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/M-series.pdf

 APPENDIX 1

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Electric Buses

 

1) Buildings: A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.

 

Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.

 

Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.

 

2) Vehicles: A gas-guzzler vehicle code, which would impose a fee on 40-mpg vehicles. The more below 40-mpg, the higher the fee. Any vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

 

“Break their will” RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVS, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions would be: 

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt, 533 g/mile

Future VT Light Duty Vehicle Mix

 

If the VT LDV mix, gasoline and hybrid vehicles, average mileage would become 40 mpg (by means of carrots and sticks), CO2 would become about 22.7/40 x 56.315 = 32 Mt over 10y, which is near the CO2 of a Prius L Eco, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

It would take relatively minor changes to reduce the average CO2 from 56.315 Mt to about 32 Mt, an average reduction of 24 Mt per vehicle. Reducing the average by an additional 4 or 5 Mt would require major changes.

 

The future VT LDV mix, as EVS, likely would have an average of about 30 - 35 Mt of CO2, because it would include full-size SUVs with AWD, which have more Mt of CO2, than the NISSAN Leaf S Plus, a compact SUV, without AWD.

 

The minor additional metric ton of CO2 reduction could be achieved by going the EV route, but that would involve $billions, and be unaffordable by already struggling households and businesses. See “Electrify Everything”

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

APPENDIX 3

 

EVs are Money Losers Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles and Hybrids

 

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 light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

The table shows the total cost of owning and operating four vehicles.

The CO2 values are on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

 

The Nissan Kona EV, and Toyota Prius L eco hybrid, both without all-wheel-drive, AWD, are not as versatile as the Subaru Outback and the Tesla Model Y for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

All four have similar cargo space.

 

Owning cost is the difference of (EV - gasoline vehicle) purchase cost, amortized at 3.5% for 10 years.

 

EV vs Gasoline

Operating

Owning

Total cost

CO2

CO2

 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

Mt/y

g/mile

Kona, no AWD

 

 

 

2.529

239

Cost, on-the-road charging

8.39

12.3

20.69

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

5.98

12.3

18.28

 

 

Model Y, AWD

 

 

 

3.024

286

Cost, on-the-road charging

9.37

26.1

35.47

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

7.04

26.1

33.14

 

 

Subaru, Outback, AWD

 

 

 

4.302

407

Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg

7.33

0

7.33

 

 

Prius L Eco, no AWD

 

 

 

 

 

Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg

0

0

3.93

 

251

APPENDIX 4

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people's houses)

 

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The heat pumps last about 15 years.

 

They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs <R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.

The heat pumps displaced about 300 gallon of my normal space heating of about 1,000 gal

Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon

 

My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

 

The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air source heat pumps, “cold-climate” or not, at such temperatures.

 

I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!

 

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; I am losing money.

 

There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

NOTE:

If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.

If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.

However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

 

* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

 

NOTE: VT-DPS found, after a survey of 87 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

  

NOTE: Standard weatherizing of Vermont’s energy-hog houses, at about $10,000/unit, would not make these house suitable for air-source heat pumps.

APPENDIX 5

 

FOUR REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF EV ELECTRICTY CONSUMPTION AND COST

 

Below are four examples. There are two additional examples in the Appendix.

 

1) 2020 Hyundai Kona, Based on User Data

 

Charging a Hyundai Kona EV, 64 kWh battery, with Level 1 charger takes about 54 hours, with Level 2 charger about 10 hours.

 

On-the-road charging from 10% full to 80% full, adds about 0.8 x 64 - 0.1 x 64 = 44.8 kWh DC to the battery, or about 190 miles of range, according to the owner.

 

The Electrify America invoice stated 54.03 kWh AC, equivalent to 54.03/190 = 0.284 kWh AC/mile, which is greater than the EPA value of 0.270 kWh/mile in table 1

 

The Kona owner’s invoice states an electricity draw of 54.03 kWh AC, at a cost of $21.07, or 39 c/kWh, not a member*

 

*Since that time, Electrify America increased its rates to 43 c/kWh, not a member.

 

Real-world charging efficiency, on-the-road, is 100*44.8/54.03 = 82.9%, a loss of 17.1%.

The loss is similar to the real-world value in table 3

https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/electric-car-driver-discovers-fast-char...

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, for a member is 31/43 x $21.70/190 miles + 0.4 c/mile = 8.39 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326/0.310, see table 3 x 0.284 kWh/mile = 5.98 c/mile

 

2) 2019 Tesla Model 3, Based on User Data

 

An owner logged the data shown bold in Table 3

 

1) Electricity, kWh AC, via a dedicated meter, and the kWh DC added to the battery, when charging at home, and

2) Electricity, kWh DC, added to the battery, when high-speed charging on the road.

 

His 2019 Model 3 used 0.326 kWh AC/mile, based on real-world driving, and at-home charging.

His real-world charging efficiency is a measured 82.2%, a charging loss of 17.8%

 

His consumption is significantly greater than in table 1, likely due to his driving habits, i.e., 1) more than one person, 2) cargo loading, 3) adverse environmental conditions, such as hot, cold, hilly, snow/ice, dirt roads.

 

His range could be 35 - 40 percent less on colder days in New England.

https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/167646/battery-charging-kwh-com...

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 8.68 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326 kWh/mile = 6.52 c/mile

 

Consumption and Cost, if Model Y

 

Consumption, on-the-road charging, is 27/25 x 0.310 = 0.335 kWh/mile

Consumption, at-home charging, is 27/25 x 0.326 = 0.352 kWh/mile

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 9.37 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.326 kWh/mile = 7.04 c/mile

 

Table 3/Actual Driving; 2019 Model 3

Charging loss

kWh DC

%

kWh AC

On-road charging of battery

1055

15.8

1222

Home charging of battery, Level 2

6690

17.8

8135

Metered total

7745

9357

Total miles

28927

On-road miles, by proration of DC charges

3940

Home miles, by subtraction

24987

Consumption, based on on-road charging, kWh/mile

0.310

Consumption, based on at-home charging, kWh/mile

0.326

 

3) Long-Term Road Test of Tesla Model 3

 

Edmunds, a car dealer in California, performed a long-term road test of a 2018 Tesla Model 3, starting in January 2018.

Edmund logged three sets of data. See table 9. See URL

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017...

 

- Electricity use averaged at 0.314 kWh AC/mile

- Miscellaneous losses averaged 100 x (31.36/29.00 - 1) = 8.13% in excess of EPA tests. See Note

- Charging loss averaged 17.97%; similar to the values of the four examples in Part Three

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data.

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

 

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2018 Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, is 0.29 kWh AC/mile. See URL

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

 

Table 9/Tesla Model 3

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Average

Odometer, per Edmund

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Travel, miles, per Edmund

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh AC/mile

Real-world, per Edmund

0.317

0.314

0.318

0.317

0.310

0.311

0.308

0.314

EPA combined test result

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

Misc. losses, %

9.31

8.28

9.66

9.31

6.90

7.24

6.21

8.13

Vehicle meter, kWh DC/mile

Real-world, per Edmond

0.252

0.248

0.250

0.251

0.248

0.247

0.245

0.249

Total loss, %

25.94

26.46

27.05

26.35

25.20

25.91

25.77

26.08

Charging loss; 26.08 - 8.13

16.63

18.18

17.39

17.04

18.30

18.67

19.56

17.95

 

4) One-Year Experience with a Tesla Model S

 

An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S logged the following, for one year:

  

Fill-up of 1,275 kWh DC, via on-the-road charger, for 4,000 miles, or 1275/4000 = 0.319 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 3,799 kWh DC, via at-home charger, for 11,243 miles, or 3799/11243 = 0.338 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 5,074 kWh DC, for 15,243 miles, or 5074/15243 = 0.333 kWh DC/mile; includes miscellaneous losses. See Note

 

Operating electricity, via wall meters, was 0.333 x 1.1795, charging factor = 0.393 kWh AC/mile; includes miscellaneous and charging losses.

Loss factor was 100 x (0.393 / 0.300, EPA - 1) = 31.00%, using EPA combined as a base.

Misc. losses, upstate NY, were 31.00 - 17.95 = 13.05%, of the electricity drawn via wall meters. Those losses are higher than in California, mainly due adverse conditions. See Note.

  

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2019 Tesla Model S, 100 kWh battery, is 30 kWh AC/100 miles. See URL

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&ye...

 

Table 4A/Tesla Model S

 

On-road

At-home

Total

Electricity leaving battery, per owner

kWh DC

1275

3799

5074

Travel, per owner

miles

4000

11243

15243

Electricity leaving battery, incl. misc., per owner

kWh DC/mile

0.319

0.338

0.333

Charging loss, %

 

17.95

Electricity, real-world, per owner

kWh AC/mile

0.393

EPA combined, laboratory

kWh DC/mile

 

 

0.300

Loss factor, 100 x (0.393/0.300, per EPA - 1)

%

 

 

31.00

Misc. losses, 31.00 - 17.97

 

 

 

13.03

 

 

 

 

Views: 580

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Kenneth Capron on February 15, 2021 at 11:55am

GPCOG/PACTS has extensive plans for electric buses in their "Transit Tomorrow" plan. Belinda Ray slid  in five corridors of BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. They run from the City out Rt302, Rt100/26, Rt1 N+S and Rt22.

Having been involved with the testing of electric buses in the 90's, the weren't very efficient. Despite being told that the should have lasted a half day on one set of batteries, we found ourselves have to replace the battery packs every 2.5 hours. Considering that the process to forklift one set out and the other set in was length, the recharge was almost 24 hours.

Now when I ask about the efficiency of electric buses, all I get is "things have improved since the 90's".

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service